Dr. Amitabh Verma vs Smt. Nonica Kher
2006 Latest Caselaw 1422 Del

JUDGMENT

S.L. Bhayana, J.

1. This is an appeal arising out of the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 19.02.2005 wherein the learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 83,522/- with pendente lite and future simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the said amount. The plaintiff was also awarded proportionate cost of the suit.

2. The brief facts of case of the plaintiff/respondent are that the plaintiff had given a flat on rent to the respondent bearing Flat No. 21/A-1, Azad Apartments, Shri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi vide lease deed executed between the parties which contained the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The appellant has agreed to pay rent @ 4,300/- per month. From March 1993 to February 1995, the rate of rent was increased to Rs. 4700/- per month and from March 1995 onwards, the rent was agreed to be paid by the appellant @ Rs. 5600/- per month. The appellant also agreed to pay water and electricity charges separately to Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking respectively over and above the rent paid by him. The appellant/defendant also agreed to pay maintenance charges to the Co-operative Housing Society and he also agreed to pay the telephone bills to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. It was further agreed in the lease agreement that the defendant/tenant will give two months notice in case he desired to vacate the premises before expiry of the lease period. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant failed to pay the rent at enhanced rate for the period March 1993 to June 1993 and the rent from May 1994 onwards. The defendant vacated the premises in the first week of July 1995 and the keys of the premises were sent to the plaintiff on 04.07.1995. The plaintiff inspected the premises in question and found that the defendant had caused lot of damage to the premises. The plaintiff also found that the wash-basin of both the bathrooms were damaged, almirah in the kitchen was damaged, wooden ward-robes were also damaged, marble flooring in the kitchen as well as flooring in other rooms was also damaged very badly. As per the estimate got prepared by the plaintiff, it was assessed that Rs. 3,00,000/- would be required to repair the damage caused to the premises. The plaintiff got the premises repaired after spending Rs. 3,00,000/- on the same. The defendant has also failed to pay maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 6370/- to the Co-operative Group Housing Society. The defendant also did not pay Rs. 65,499/- against electricity bills to Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking besides telephone bills amounting to Rs. 1078/- to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. The plaintiff had to pay these bills to Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited to avoid the disconnection of the electricity and telephone connection. The defendant also did not give two months' notice to the plaintiff before vacating the premises and he is liable to pay Rs. 11,200/- in lieu of rent for the said period. The plaintiff filed the suit in the sum of Rs. 5,03,000/- against the defendant claiming interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. The defendant filed his written statement and took preliminary objection that the suit was not signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person. On merits, the defendant has stated that as per the lease deed, he was let-out the premises for a period of four months only by registered lease deed w.e.f. 02.03.1995 to 02.07.1995. The defendant has denied that he has not paid the enhanced rent to the plaintiff. The defendant had taken the premises on rent for four months at monthly rent of Rs. 5600/- per month from 02.03.1995 to 02.07.1995 by a registered lease deed and nothing was due to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. The defendant has further stated that he had paid the monthly rent and maintenance charges up to date and the receipt was issued by the Co-operative Group Housing Society in the month of June, 1995. The defendant has also denied that he had caused any damage to the suit property or that he is in arrears of electricity and telephone charges. The defendant also denied that he was required to serve two months' notice before vacating the premises or that he is liable to pay Rs. 11,200/- in lieu of that notice. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit has been filed by the authorised person? OPP

2. Whether the parties in suit executed a registered lease deed dated 01.03.1995 for a limited period for four months w.e.f. 02.03.1995 to 02.07.1995? OPD

3. Whether the tenancy came to an end on 02.07.1995 and premises in dispute were handed over to plaintiff in damaged condition as detailed in paragraph 14 of the plaint. OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 4,55,147/- from the defendant as detailed in paragraph 14 of the plaint? OPP

5. Relief.

3. After examining the witnesses, the learned trial court heard the arguments and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 83,522/- out of total claim of Rs. 5,03,000/- from the defendant and hence partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 83,522/- with pendente lite and future simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the said amount Along with proportionate cost of the suit.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent and have perused the record carefully. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has not applied its' mind while passing the judgment and decree in the sum of Rs. 83,522/- against the appellant/defendant. He has further submitted that the appellant/defendant had cleared all the arrears of the Co-operative Group Housing Society before vacating the premises and sum of Rs. 6370/- has been wrongly decreed by the learned trial court towards maintenance charges payable by the defendant to the Co-operative Group Housing Society. The appellant had cleared all the arrears of the Co-operative Group Housing Society. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the receipt "Annexure A" issued by Navketan Group Housing Society in the month of June, 1995.

5. We have gone through the receipt but in the said receipt it is nowhere mentioned that the maintenance charges have been paid by the defendant up to date to the society. This receipt only mentions about the car parking charges paid by the defendant up to date to the society and there is no mention of maintenance charges in the said receipt. On the other hand, the receipt produced by the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent Ex.PW1/5 dated 01.09.1995 shows that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 6370/- towards maintenance charges for the period up to June 1995. So, the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant had cleared the arrears of the maintenance charges of the Group Housing Society is without any merit and the same is therefore rejected. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no electricity charges are due and payable by the appellant/defendant to Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking during the period the defendant was a tenant in the suit premises and that he had cleared all the arrears of the electricity till the time he remained in possession of the premises. However, he has admitted that he had received a bill from Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking amounting to Rs. 34,000/- but he had not paid this bill as this bill was inflated and he had written to the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking authorities to rectify the same but Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking authorities did not rectify this bill which was inflated till the time he vacated the premises. However, the counsel for the appellant has failed to place on record any representation or any letter written by him to Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking authorities for rectifying Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking bill of Rs. 34,000/- received by the defendant during the period of tenancy. We have gone through the electricity bills placed on record by the respondent/plaintiff. These two bills are Ex.P5. As per these two bills, the appellant was in arrears of electricity bills for a period of 16 months prior to October 1995. The premises was vacated by the appellant/defendant around 02.07.1995 without clearing the arrears of electricity charges with Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking authorities. The amount of Rs. 65,499/- has been paid by the defendant/plaintiff to Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking authorities as per the two bills (Ex. P5) placed on record by the plaintiff/respondent whereas the appellant has failed to show any receipt regarding payment of Rs. 65,499/- which has been shown outstanding against him by Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking authorities for the period of 16 months during which he was in possession of the suit premises. In our opinion, the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to receive the arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rs. 65,499/- from the appellant for the period during which the appellant/defendant was in possession of the suit premises. So, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant on the point that this amount was not payable by the appellant to the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking authorities is without any basis and is therefore rejected. Learned Counsel for the appellant has conceded that the appellant does not dispute the payment towards arrears amounting to Rs. 454/- of telephone bill for the use of telephone by him for the period 16.05.1995 to 15.07.1995. Counsel for the appellant has also not disputed about the payment of rent of two months for the period April 1995 to June 1995 at the rate of Rs. 5600/- per month. He has stated that rent for the month of March 1995 was paid when the lease deed was executed and one month rent was given as security deposit by the appellant to the plaintiff at the time of execution of lease deed. The rent for the month of April, 1995 stands paid to the plaintiff/respondent and after adjusting security amount of Rs. 5600/- only two months rent remains unpaid by the appellant to the plaintiff/respondent. The total amount recoverable towards rent for two months comes to Rs. 11,200/- which has been decreed by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

6. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the trial court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff partly in the sum of Rs. 83,522/- with pendente lite and future simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation Along with proportionate costs of the suit. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is therefore dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Trial court record be sent back. File be consigned to record room.