Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Defendants' case 3 In the Written Statement filed on behalf of defendants, defendants admitted having taken the suit premises on lease vide Lease Deed dated 14th March 2011 on the assurance of the plaintiff that a Completion Certificate will be provided by the plaintiff to the defendant with respect to the suit premises which was not provided till date. It is stated that the defendants had to incur huge expenses amounting to a sum of Rupees 4 crores in order to secure completion of suit premises and to avoid losses. It is further submitted that the suit premises was leased to CS - 11452/16 Saphire Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. Pg. 5 of 46 defendants on understanding that suit premises was free from encumbrances and liabilities but defendant had to suffer difficulties on multiple occasions on account of the lapse of the plaintiff to fulfill its obligation to MCD, Fire Department, DDA etc. with respect to completion of the suit premises /building as per the notified standards. It is further stated that Clause 7.8 of the Lease Deed burdened the plaintiff with the duty to carry out all necessary structural repairs in an expeditious manner but the suit premises was handed over to the defendants in an inhabitable condition and the requisite repairs or the maintenance works to make the suit premises habitable, were incurred by the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff has acted in material breach of understanding by way of Lease Deed as no cause of action subsists against the defendant. It is also submitted that any notice asking the defendant to vacate and handover the possession of the suit premises was not received.

He admitted that as per Clause 7.8 of Lease Deed, it was the duty of the plaintiff company to carry out the necessary structural repairs in an expeditious manner. He also admitted that it was the duty of the Lessor to attend all requisite major structural repairs to the demised premises at all times provided any such defects were not necessitated on account of negligence of the Lessee. He denied that the suit premises was handed over to the defendant in a less than habitable CS - 11452/16 Saphire Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. Pg. 12 of 46 condition or that any subsequent repairs or maintenance work were not carried out by the plaintiff. He denied that consequently defendant had to incur losses and expenses to carry out the necessary repairs and maintenance to make the suit premises habitable.

15.3 Defendant has not led any evidence to show the lapses on the part of plaintiff with respect to obtaining necessary compliances as per the notified standards from various statutory authorities. No specifications have been provided by defendant for independent examination by the Court of any such mandates, which were obligatory on the part of plaintiff to fulfill. Further, there is nothing brought on record to decipher that the suit premises, in fact, was not in habitable condition and plaintiff was in breach of any express term of the Lease Deed for leasing out a property which required extensive structural repairs. PW­1 affirmed in Evidentiary Affidavit Ex. PW1/1 that defendants have incorrectly contended about the suit premises having been handed over to them in less than habitable condition and that no subsequent repair work were carried out by plaintiff. PW­ 1 relied upon recital in Clause B of the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/1 that the lessee fully satisfied itself with respect to right, title, interest, design, specifications and quality of construction of the premises and assured the lessor of being CS - 11452/16 Saphire Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. Pg. 19 of 46 bound by the stipulations imposed by appropriate authorities and the terms and conditions of the agreement. PW­1 also relied upon Clause 4.5 and Clause 5.4 of Lease Deed Ex. PW1/1 highlighting the obligation upon the lessee to obtain all the necessary approvals from the concerned authorities as might be required to carry out its activities in the demised premises and shall be solely responsible for any consequences arising out of breach. PW­1 also took support of Clause 5.7 of Lease Deed in his evidentiary affidavit that the onus was on lessee for obtaining as well as keeping active any permissions / registrations require to run business activities in the suit premises and would solely be responsible to obtain those permissions requisite for commercial usage of the suit. PW­1 also pointed out that Clause 7.8 of the Lease Deed only cast an obligation upon plaintiff to carry out major structural repairs, if necessitated during the subsistence of lease deed. PW­1 affirmed that the losses on account of repairs / maintenance work as alleged by defendants was not on account of any damage requiring any major structural repairs, thus, the losses as contended on behalf of defendants was not a responsibility of the plaintiff under the terms of the lease deed.

15.4 During cross­examination of PW­1 by Counsel appearing on CS - 11452/16 Saphire Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. Pg. 20 of 46 behalf of Liquidator for defendant no.1, PW­1 admitted that it was the obligation of the plaintiff company to carry out the structural repairs in the suit premises as per mandate of Clause 7.8 of the Lease Deed dated 14.03.2011 Ex.PW1/1, however denied that the suit premises were handed over to the defendant in less than habitable condition or that extensive repairs were required in the suit premises, on account of which defendant had to incur huge expenses.