Harbhajan Kaur And Ors. vs Rattan Chand Sharma
1995 Latest Caselaw 988 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) This is an appeal from the order of the learned Single lodge dated September 25, 1995, in I.A. No. 4414/95 in Suit No. 15/84. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:

(2) The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated December 30,1978, against the respondent-defendant in respect of property No.J-96, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. On April 5, 1991, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted a decree for specific performance in favor of the appellants on the condition of their depositing the outstanding purchase price/sale consideration amounting to Rs. 1,68,000.00 within six weeks. The appellants failed to deposit the said sum of money within the time prescribed by the Court. Since the appellants failed to fulfill their obligation under the decree inasmuch as the amount was not deposited within the time allowed by the Court, they filed an application for extension of time and for condensation of delay in depositing the amount. This Court, however, by its order dated July 22, 1993, rejected the request of the appellants. The appellants thereafter filed an application for review of the order dated July 22, 1993. The review application was also dismissed. Dissatisfied the appellants filed appeals before the Division Bench but the same also did not bear any favorable result as the same were dismissed The appellants thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was also rejected. Thus, the order dated July 22, 1993, acquired finality.

(3) Thereupon the respondent moved an application under Section 28(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for rescission of the contract and restoration of possession of the instant property. The learned Single Judge on November 22,1994, allowed the application of the respondent and directed the appellants to deliver possession to the respondent and for this purpose time was allowed till June 30, 1995. The learned Single Judge also granted liberty to the appellants to move an application under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act as the appellants urged that the respondent was liable to pay compensation to the former. On May 19,1995, the appellants filed an application under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, being I.A No. 4414/95. In this application it was averred that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated December 30, 197;, a sum of Rs. 32,000.00 was paid by Shri G.S. Bhinder, the predecessor-in-interest o the appellants, as advance. This amour along with interest and other amounts . ie claimed to be recoverable from th respondent. Following are the details of the amounts which are being claimed by he appellants:- 1. Amount paid in advance with interest. Rs. 9,85,000.00 2. Amount paid towards House Tax. Rs. 22,552.00 3. Amount spent on maintenance of the building. Rs. 1,37,940.00 4. Amount spent on major repairs of the building. Rs. 1,50,000.00 5. Compensation. Rs. 7,00,000.00

(4) The total amount, thus, claimed by the appellants in the application is Rs. 19,95,492.00. The learned Single Judge by the impunged order dated September 25, 1995, declined the prayer of the appellants and rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

(5) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, while reiterating the request made in the application, submitted that the appellants in equity were entiled to return of a sum of Rs. 32,000.00 along with interest. Besides, it was asserted that the appellants have spent huge sums of money on the maintenance of the building and on major repairs. He also submitted that the respondents have benefitted by the rescission of the agreement dated December 30,1978, to the tune of several lakhs of rupees as in the meantime the price of the property has gone up manifold.

(6) We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants but we regret our inability to accept the same. It would be seen that the appellants have claimed a sum of Rs. 9,85,000.00 while they had paid an advance of Rs. 32,000.00. The said sum of Rs. 32,000.00 was paid to the respondent at the time of execution of the agreement to sell leaving a balance of Rs. 1,68,000.00, which they defaulted to pay. We have not been able to appreciate as to why the respondents should pay interest on Rs. 32,000.00 to the appellants. No fault can be attributed to the respondent for the rescission of the contract. It was the appellants who failed to carry out the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 5,1991, whereby the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,68,000.00 - for claiming the specific performance of the agreement. For the failure of the appellants the respondent cannot be saddled with interest. It would also be relevant to note that the appellants have enjoyed undeservedly the possession of the property for long eighteen years for which they have not paid any rent or compensation to the respondent. If the respondent was to claim rent/compensation and interest thereon from the appellants it would be not less than a few lakhs. The mere fact that the price of the property has gone up and the vendors are having benefit of the same cannot be a grievance. The prices have gone up not because of the efforts of the appellants. The price rise is a result of the market forces for which the appellants have not contributed anything. If at all, it was the default of the appellants in paying the balance consideration that resulted in the rescission and restoration of possession to vendors. The claim of the appellants that they have maintained the building and carried out some repairs cannot justify the recovery of the said sums spent by them from the respondent as the maintenance and the repairs, if any, of the building were for the benefit of the appellants themselves who were in possession of the building and utilising it without paying rent or compensation. It seems to us that none of the parties would be entitled to receive from each other any sum of money on account of rescission of the agreement to sell dated December 30, 1978, as the appellants enjoyed the use of the property for 18 long years without paying any rent and the respondent has got back the property which now commands a very high price in the market. Therefore, we feel that the justice of the matter does not require any refund or payment of money to the appellants by the respondent nor interest nor any other amount, and vice versa. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the application of the appellants. Accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed without costs.