JUDGEMENT
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. -
(1.)The plaintiff herein, which is a public limited company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, entered into a Lease Agreement dated 24-04-1996 (Ex D-1)
(hereinafter referred to as the "Lease Agreement") with the defendants in
respect of an office space at 4th floor, Herald House, 5-A, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Demised Premises") for a
period of eight years w.e.f 01.05.1996 subject to earlier determination and to
an escalation on the last rent payable at 15% of the rent and service charges
paid during the immediately preceding month. According to the provisions of the
said Lease Agreement, the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs. 66,75,000/-
as security deposit which was equivalent to twelve months rent. This security
was an interest free security which was refundable within seven days from the
termination/determination of the lease failing which the defendants were liable
to pay interest @ 20% from the date of such deposit of security till the date of
actual refund. The plaintiff also had to pay an advance rent and service charges
for three months amounting to Rs. 16,68,750/- to be adjusted against the
monthly rent and service charges of the following twelve months. In accordance
with the same, the plaintiff deposited the required security of Rs. 66,75,000/-
with the defendants along with Rs. 16,68,750/- as service charges for three
months in advance.
(2.)It appears that after enjoying the tenancy for a few months, the plaintiff
desired to vacate the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that there were
perennial defaults and breaches on the part of the defendants. It is averred
that the defendants failed to take any steps or make necessary repairs in
relation to the water leakage and non-effectiveness of the air conditioner in
spite of several reminders being given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also
states that the defendants have also breached the provisions of clause 13 of the
lease agreement that required the defendants to make payments to concerned
authorities in respect of property tax in relation to the demised premises.
Consequently, the plaintiff by its letter dated 18-11-1997(Ex D-2) sent a notice
of termination of the lease w.e.f. 19.11.1997 in accordance with clause 21 of
the Lease Agreement calling upon the defendants to take possession of the
demised premises and to refund the security deposit after deducting the rent of
the previous three months along with the stipulated interest. It is also stated
that thereafter, several reminders were sent to the defendants regarding the
same vide letters dated 17-02-1998, 16-04-1998, 30-04-1998, 20-07-1998 and 05-
09-1998.
(3.)It is averred that on 16-04-1998, the plaintiff communicated to the defendants
that it had shifted to a new building and was no longer in possession of the
demised premises. In reply, the defendants vide letter dated 18-04-1998
addressed to the plaintiff stated that the delivery of vacant possession of the
demised premises was a condition precedent to the refund of the security
deposit. It is the case of the plaintiff that constructive possession was handed
over to the defendant with the determination of the lease and that actual
possession was subject to the reciprocal arrangement on the part of the
defendants to refund the amount of security deposit along with the stipulated
interest. The defendants failed to refund the aforesaid amount, and thus the
plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 46,72,500/- with
pendentilite and future interest @ 20% p.a. from the date of institution of the
suit till payment or realization, the details of which are given in para- 10
of the plaint and read as under:
JUDGEMENT_1195_ILRDLH16_2007Html1.htm
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.