Delhi High Court
G.C.Mitra vs Maina Kanoria on 10 December, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.413/2007
Date of decision: 10th December, 2008
%
G.C.MITRA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Raman Kapur, Adv.
versus
MAINA KANORIA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Ravi Gupta and
Mr. Ankit Jain, Advs.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)
1. The dispute has not been settled.
2. We have heard arguments on merits.
3. Vide lease deed dated 04.09.2008, Ex.PW1/3, the
basement of the property bearing No.C-7/3, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi was let out by the appellant to the respondent.
Rs.2,40,000/- was received by the appellant as a security
deposit to be refunded when tenanted premises was
surrendered. Another sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was received
which had to be adjusted towards future rent. Stating that
she had taken the premises for operating therefrom a beauty
parlour; respondent carried out extensive renovation,
reconstruction, addition and alteration in the basement and in
particular construction of toilets/bathroom, allegedly with the
consent of the appellant.
4. The respondent appears not to be successful in running
the business of beauty parlour and claimed to have served a
notice dated 13.07.2003, Ex.PW1/4, to vacate the tenanted
premises on 13th October, 2003.
5. It was a term of the lease deed that the tenancy could
be determined by giving a notice of 3 months.
6. Neither was possession taken over nor was the security
deposit returned and hence the respondent filed a suit for
recovery of Rs.2,40,000/-. Pre-suit interest on said amount @
24% per annum was claimed. Watch and ward charges @
Rs.15,000/- per month was also claimed till possession was
taken over.
7. Mandatory injunction was sought against the appellant
to take back the physical and vacant possession of the
tenanted premises.
8. The claim was opposed.
9. A counter claim was raised by the appellant demanding
rent for the entire period as also damages. Certain
outstanding pertaining to electricity and water charges were
also claimed.
10. The appellant dispute receipt of the notice determining
the tenancy, Ex.PW1/4. The appellant claimed that the
respondents have made extensive changes in the tenanted
premises and that she was liable to restore the possession as
in the original condition.
11. The respondent relied upon a letter dated 29.08.2002,
Ex.PW1/2, purportedly addressed by one Sh. S.A. Siddiqui,
Attorney of the respondent, seeking consent to construct two
new bathrooms in the basement. The said letter purportedly
bears the signatures of the appellant at the point mark 'A' in
Ex.PW1/2. The said signatures were denied by the appellant.
Similar signatures at point 'A' on Ex.PW1/4 were denied by the
appellant.
12. Needless to state, the issue between the parties
centered on whether signatures of the appellant on Ex.PW1/2
and Ex.PW1/4 were those of the appellant or not.
13. With reference to the signatures of the appellant on the
admitted documents and the testimony of the witness of the
respondent, the Learned Trial Judge has returned a finding
that signatures on both the disputed documents are those of
the appellant.
14. We note that the appellant took over the physical and
vacant possession of the premises on 21.01.2004.
15. The result of the finding of the Learned Trial Judge is that
the appellant is not entitled to any rent post 12.10.2003 and
that the renovations were made by the respondent with the
consent of the appellant and hence the appellant could make
no grievance pertaining thereto. The result is the dismissal of
the counter claim. But, noting that rent from 01.10.2003 up
to 12.10.2003 was not paid and water and electricity charges
up to said date in sum of Rs.3,770/- and Rs.1,340/-
respectively were outstanding. Rs.23,110/- is ordered to be
deducted. Rs.18,000/- being the rent for the period of
01.10.2003 to 12.10.2003, which admittedly was not paid has
also been deducted.
16. Net result is that the decree in favour of the respondent
in sum of Rs.2,16,890/- The said amount has been decreed
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
suit till realization.
17. Sole contention urged in the appeal that the Learned
Trial Judge erred in comparing with his own eyes the
signatures on the two documents, Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4 vis-
à-vis the signatures of the appellant on the other documents
which were admitted by him.
18. We have pursued the signatures of the appellant on the
disputed as well as the admitted documents. We note that the
signatures of the appellant are extremely shaky on numerous
occasions but become firm on some occasions. The reason for
this is the old age of the appellant who is today aged about 81
years. When the admitted and documents in dispute were
signed, the age of the appellant would be around 75 years to
76 years. Obviously, the signatures vary.
19. A circumstance needs to be noted. The said
circumstance, in our opinion, clinches the issue. The said
circumstance is that the appellant is residing on the first floor
of the same property, i.e. C-7/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
20. The extensive renovation carried out in the basement,
which includes the construction of two toilets, would certainly
have attracted the notice of the landlord who resides in the
same building by extensive volume of construction material,
cutting of marble, installation of new sewage pipelines etc.
21. We are satisfied with the view taken by the Learned Trial
Judge that that evidence on record shows the consent of the
appellant for the extensive renovation to be carried out in the
basement and hence we affirm the impugned judgment and
decree.
22. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent states
that since the principal sum of Rs.2,16,690/- has been
deposited by the appellant in this Court ,as informed to him;
on receipt of the said amount together with any interest which
has accrued thereon the respondent would treat the claim
under the decree as satisfied and would not press for the
recovery of cost and interest.
23. We take on record the statement of learned counsel for
the respondent.
24. The appeal is dismissed.
25. No costs.
26. Amount lying in deposit be paid over to the respondent
by cheque; to be handed over to the counsel on record for the
respondent.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
DECEMBER 10, 2008
mk
