Delhi High Court

Shikha Birla vs Ambience Developers Pvt Ltd on 20 December, 2008

Author: Sanjiv Khanna

CS(OS) NO.50/2008                     Page No.1


                                                             REPORTABLE

*                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

    +                 I.A. Nos. 418/2008, 4814-15/2008 AND 7834/2008
                            in CS(OS) No. 50/2008

%                             Date of Decision : 20th December, 2008.



SHIKHA BIRLA                                       .... Plaintiff.

                                Through Mr. Sumit Bansal, Mr.Ajay
                                Monga, Mr.Ateev Mathur, advocates.

                                 VERSUS


AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.                     .... Defendant.

                                Through Mr. P.K. Agrawal, Mr.Noor
                                Alam, advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes.

in the Digest ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J:

1. This Order will dispose of applications of the plaintiff filed under

Order XII, Rule 6, Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and applications of the

defendant under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 and Order VII, Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code,

for short).

CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.2

2. Ms. Shikha Birla (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for

short) has filed the present Suit against Ambience Developers Pvt.

Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the defendant, for short) for specific

performance of the contract contained in the letter dated 8th

September, 2004 and as modified by the letter dated 29th October,

2005 and for direction to the defendant to handover possession of

Shop No.G-76, (measuring 717.55 sq. ft) on the ground floor of

Ambience Mall, Plot No.2, Vasant Kunj Mall Area, New Delhi. Certain

other reliefs are also prayed for.

3. Before arguments were addressed on these applications, statement of Mr.Raj Singh Gehlot, Principal Officer and Director of the defendant was recorded in the Court on 16th September, 2008.

4. The two letters dated 8th September, 2004 and 29th October,

2005 are admitted documents. Mr.Raj Singh Gehlot has admitted the

said documents in his statement recorded on 16th September, 2008

and they have been given Mark "A" and "D".

5. By letter dated 8th September, 2004, plaintiff was informed by

the defendant that they were pleased to allot shop no.G-79,

(measuring 65.31 mts super area) on the ground floor under the

installment payment plan. The allotment letter states as under:-

„....., we are pleased to allot you Retail Shop No.G-79, having approximately 65.31 sq.mtrs. (703.03 sq.ft) of Super Area of space on Ground Floor under Installment Payment Plan as per enclosed Payment Plan. Kindly note that the above allotment CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.3

is subject to your execution of the Commercial Space Buyers' Agreement on Company's standard format, contents of which have been explained and understood by you and your compliance of all the terms and conditions as given in your application for allotment of space and due performance and compliance of all you obligations as contained in the said Application Form and Commercial Space Buyers‟ Agreement...."

6. Enclosed with the said letter was a chart specifying the amount

and the stages on which installments were to be paid. The total

amount payable was Rs.87,03,511/-.

7. Letter dated 29th October, 2005, an admitted document, is

written by the defendant to the plaintiff and is given mark „D‟. By the

said letter the defendant informed the plaintiff that due to change in

the lay out plan, the plaintiff had been allotted shop no. G-76,

measuring 715.55 sq.ft. instead of shop no.G-79. This letter by the

defendant states that upto 3rd October, 2005 an amount of

Rs.63,75,548/- was due and payable as per the installment payment

plan enclosed with the letter dated 8th September, 2004 but the

plaintiff had made payment of Rs.7,50,000/- leaving a balance of

Rs.56,25,548/- as due and payable on the said date. The letter

further states:-

"......You are therefore requested to make the payment of the installments due to us on or before 10.11.2005 by way of Bank Draft of MICR cheque payable at New Delhi favouring „Ambience Developers Private Limited.‟ CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.4

We are enclosing herewith an updated payment plan of the abovesaid Retail Shop No.G-76, which you are requested to follow to make the payment of the installments in future.

As already stated above, you have not made payment of installments till date in time. It may please be noted that timely payment of the installments shall not only help us in completing the proposed Mall in time but also save you from the penal action including interest for late payment and/or cancellation of the registration/allotment of abovesaid shop due to delay in making payment of installments in time.

We are sure that you will be prompt enough in complying with the stated payment plan and schedule in order to avoid penal action including cancellation of the abovesaid shop."

8. Payment of Rs.56,25,548/- by the plaintiff by four different cheques

dated 8th November, 2005 for Rs. 17,00,145/-, 9th November, 2005

for Rs. 8,50,000/- and Rs. 17,00,146/- and 17th November, 2005 for

Rs.13,75,183/- is not disputed. The said cheques were accepted,

encashed and the defendant had executed two receipts given mark G

and H dated 26th November, 2005 for Rs. 25,50,219/- and

Rs.30,75,329/-. Even if there was delay of 7 days in payment of

Rs.17,00,145/-, the said payment was accepted and receipt issued

without protest or reservations. There is admittedly no communication

of the defendant for this delay of 7 days in payment or any letter

asking for interest. Thus there is no dispute about payment of Rs.

63,75,548/- out of total payment of Rs.88,58,509/- .

CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.5

9. Along with the said letter dated 29th October, 2005, the defendant

had enclosed an updated payment plan, Mark „E‟ for further

payments after the said date. As per the said plan two installments

of Rs.6,37,555/- each were payable 3rd December, 2005 and 3rd

March, 2005 and the third installment of Rs.9,95,330/- was payable

on 3rd June, 2006. No date was fixed for payment of the last and

balance installment of Rs. 2,12,518/- plus registration charges but

Mark E stipulated that this amount to equal 2.5% of the price was

payable on receipt of the occupation certificate.

10. As per the plaintiff she has made payment of the three

installments as per chart given below (see paragraphs 11 to 13 of the

plaint):-

      Srl.No.    Due date   Date of    Amount            Delay
                of payment Payment      (Rs.)
        1.      03.12.2005 17.01.2006 06,37,554         1 month,
                                                         4 days
        2.          03.03.2006 08.03.2006 06,37,555      5 days
        3.          03.06.2006 19.06.2006 09,95,330     16 days

11. Mr.Raj Singh Gehlot, Principal Officer and Director of the

defendant-Company in his statement recorded on 16th September,

2008 had stated that letter dated 8th March, 2006, Mark „I‟ written by

the plaintiff enclosing therewith a cheque for Rs.6,37,555/- might

have been received in their office but he had not checked up whether

the said cheque of Rs.6,37,555/- as mentioned in the said letter has

been received and encashed by the defendant. A similar reply was

given by Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot in respect of letter dated 22nd June, CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.6

2006 (Mark „K‟) written by the plaintiff enclosing therewith a cheque of

Rs.9,95,330/-. It is unfortunate that the Director and Principal Officer

of the defendant-Company had given an evasive answer in this

regard in his statement recorded on 16th September, 2008. It is

apparent that Mr.Raj Singh Gehlot has deliberately and intentionally

feigned ignorance on the question whether cheques of Rs.6,37,555/-

and Rs.9,95,330/- issued by the plaintiff to the defendant were

accepted by them and encashed. Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot, director and

principal officer of the defendant was asked about the said payments

but he avoided giving straight and clear answers. However in the

written statement filed by the defendant they have accepted and

admitted three payments of Rs.6,37,555/-, Rs.6,37,555/- and

Rs.9,95,330/- in reply to paragraphs 11 to 13 of the plaint. Reply to

the said paragraphs in the written statement is identical and reads:-

"Para (11) of the plaint is substantially correct and needs no reply. It is submitted that the plaintiff made the payment beyond the stipulated date and thus in terms of the letter of allotment and the terms and conditions as contained in the application form, became liable to pay interest"

The denial is not specific and in fact admits receipt and

acceptance of payments. The only plea and claim is for payment of

interest for this (cumulative) delay of two months and two days.

CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.7

12. Along with the letter dated 29th October, 2005, the defendant

had enclosed a Note marked „F‟, again an admitted document, the

relevant clause of which reads as under:-

"3.Time for payment of installments on respective due dates is essence of allotment. Any delay in this respect besides making the allotment liable for cancellation shall attract a penal interest of 18% p.a. for first 90 days of delay and 21% p.a. for any further delay as per terms of application for allotment and Space Buyers‟ Agreement."

Thus in case of belated payment, the plaintiff became liable to pay interest as stipulated. In paragraph 20 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that she is ready to pay interest as per letter of allotment.

13. The defendant has admitted that construction was delayed in

view of the stay order passed by the Supreme Court in 2006 and

clearances required. In paragraph 4 of the written statement on

merits it is stated as under;-

"......The dates mentioned in the payment plan were merely tentative and for purpose of payment of installments."

14. Inspite of the admitted delay in the project, the plaintiff had been

making payments of substantial amounts from time to time. Total

payments made are Rs.86,45,987/-. The payments have been

accepted and cheques given encashed. The only balance payment

due is Rs.2,12,518/- or 2.5% of the total price plus registration

charges for which no specific date was fixed in the updated

installment payment schedule Mark E but the same is payable as per CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.8

the schedule on receipt of „occupation certificate‟. Written statement

does not state the date on which „occupation certificate‟ was issued. It

is not stated or alleged that any letter was written asking the plaintiff

to make payment of Rs.2,12,518/- as „occupation certificate‟ had

been issued.

15. On 10th June, 2006 the defendant wrote a letter, mark „L‟, stating

that the plaintiff had to pay Rs.13,38,424.21/- including

Rs.7,00,869.21/- towards interest and said payment should be made

by 25th June, 2006. No details of the principal amount, break up, rate

of interest and period of interest were given in the letter. Mr. Raj

Singh Gehlot in his statement recorded on 16th September, 2008

admitted this fact. He has further stated that when he had signed the

written statement he had not checked the period and the rate of

interest being charged. No details are given in the written statement

also.

16. The plaintiff wrote letters dated 24th June, 2006 and 5th October,

2006 to the defendant specifying that final installment payment of

Rs.9,95,330/- was already made, there was delay in the project and

she was waiting for possession. In the letter dated 5th October, 2006

it was stated " if there is any amount due from our end we would like

to clear it as early as possible so that we will be first among the

people to have the possession of the premises". Letter dated 5th

October, 2007 was again sent as a reminder on 25th October, 2007.

CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.9

Receipt of the said letters is admitted by the defendant in the written

statement (see reply to paras 14 and 16 on merits). Written reply was

send by the defendant only on 2nd January, 2008 stating that time of

payment was essence of allotment, reminder/demand of

Rs.13,38,424.21 was raised on 10th June, 2006 and payment of Rs.

9,95,330/- was made on 19th June, 2006 leaving a balance of Rs.

3,43,094.21/-, which stands increased to Rs.6,48,343/- on 2nd

January, 2008. The allotment was cancelled and after deducting

earnest money from Rs.86,45,987/-, a cheque of Rs.63,64,763/- was

enclosed towards refund. The plaintiff has not encashed the said

cheque.

17. Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot in his statement recoded on 16th

September, 2008 has stated that the defendant company may have

written the said letter 2nd January, 2008, mark M but he had not read

and examined the said letter before signing the written statement.

18. The admitted facts are startling and are completely one sided in

favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has made payment of

Rs.86,45,987/- to the defendant between the period 2004 to 19th

June, 2006. Payments were accepted, received and used. Claim for

payment of Rs.13,38,424.21/- including interest of Rs. 7,00,869/- was

made by the defendant by letter dated 10th June, 2006. The plaintiff

made payment of Rs.9,95,330/- and wrote letters dated 24th June,

2006, 5th October, 2007 and 25th October, 2007 to which there was CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.10

no written response from the defendant. There is no written

communication by the defendant between 10th June, 2006 till 2nd

January, 2008. By letter dated 2nd January, 2008 the defendant

cancelled the allotment for alleged non payment of Rs.3,43,094.21/-

and after deducting earnest money from Rs.86,45,987/-, a cheque of

Rs.63,64,763/- was enclosed towards refund. The plaintiff has not

encashed the said cheque. These are not disputed facts but admitted

facts. The defendant has not given break up of this claim of Rs.

3,43,094.21/- in the written statement nor is this amount explained in

any letter/document. Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot, principal officer and

director of the defendant company who has signed and verified the

written statement on basis of his knowledge and has filed an affidavit

in support, stating on solemn oath that he was aware of facts and

written statement was filed on his instructions and forms part of the

said affidavit, has expressed complete ignorance about the claim for

interest, the period and rate at which it was claimed. At best

cumulative delay is two months and two days for which the defendant

can charge interest @18% per annum as per clause 3 of note, mark

„F‟. The said demand has not been raised and the allotment has been

cancelled after receiving 97.5% payment of Rs. 86,45,987/- and

enjoying the same. Balance 2.5% is payable when „occupation

certificate‟ is obtained by the defendant, for which no demand has

been raised and payment demanded.

CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.11

19. It is apparent that the defendant wants to take advantage of

increase in prices. This was admitted by Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot in his

statement recorded on 16th September, 2008 when he admitted that

the sale price of shops sold in 2005-2006 was more than the sale

price when the shop was sold to the plaintiff.

20. Faced with overwhelming admitted facts, the defendant has

resorted to technical pleas that allotment agreement is an agreement

to enter into an agreement in form of „commercial space buyer‟s

agreement‟ and therefore not enforceable and the allotment

agreement, it was agreed, cannot be legally or specifically enforced in

a court of law.

21. An understanding to enter into a legally binding agreement

does not result in a legally enforceable contract but an understanding

or a bargain is legally enforceable, if execution of a further document

is to effectuate the manner in which the transaction already agreed

upon by the parties is to be implemented. In the former case,

execution of the agreement is a condition precedent. An agreement

to enter into an agreement is not executable but in the latter case

execution of a formal document is not a condition precedent and

rights and obligations of the parties come into existence. The test is

whether an agreement is a complete bargain or mere intention or

desire of the parties to enter into a complete bargain without creating

any permanent liabilities in presentii. In Sobhag Narain Mathur CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.12

versus Pragya Agrawal and others reported in (141) 2007 DLT 356

the subject has been examined in depth and it was observed as

under:-

"18. Therefore, a mere reference to a future formal contract will not in law prevent a binding bargain between the parties. The fact that the parties refer to the preparation of a formal agreement by which the terms agreed upon are to be put in a more formal shape, does not prevent the existence of a binding contract. The issue to be determined is whether it could be said that the parties did not intend to be bound by the first agreement until a formal contract was signed. This question is to be determined on the basis of the intention of the parties in the light of the special circumstances of each particular case. If the initial contract contemplates the execution of a further contract between the parties, the Court would determine whether the further contract is a condition or term of the bargain, or whether it is a mere expression of the desire of the parties as to the manner in which the transaction already agreed upon would go through. On a true construction of the first agreement, if it appears that the execution of a further agreement is a condition or term of the bargain, then it is merely an agreement to enter into another agreement, which is not enforceable, but if it appears that the requirement of execution of a formal agreement is a mere desire of the parties as to the manner in which the transaction already agreed upon will go through, the first agreement itself would constitute a binding and enforceable agreement to sell."

22. Letter dated 8th September, 2004 (mark „A‟) has been quoted

above. The letter is acceptance of the offer made to the plaintiff by

the defendant. It refers to allotment of a particular shop to the

plaintiff, installment plan for making payment by the plaintiff and CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.13

performance of obligations as contained in the application form and

commercial space buyers‟ agreement. The plaintiff and defendants

were under an obligation to comply with the terms contained in the

application form and the commercial space buyers‟ agreement. The

letter further stipulates that the plaintiff would execute Commercial

Space Buyers‟ Agreement on company‟s standard format contents of

which had been explained to and understood by the plaintiff. Terms

and conditions were ascertained and certain. Nothing was left to be

negotiated and settled for future. Terms were agreed and

Commercial Space Buyer‟s Agreement on a standard format was

read and understood. It was a certain and a concluded bargain. It is

not a case where the parties were entering into a temporary

understanding, which may or may not fructify in a binding bargain and

execution of flat/Commercial Space Buyers‟ Agreement was a

condition precedent for creating permanent obligations. A concluded

contract therefore had come into existence. The letters therefore

cannot be regarded as an understanding which do not create an

enforceable agreement in law but only an understanding between the

parties to enter into an enforceable agreement in future. The

contentions of the plaintiff in this regard are specious and should be

rejected in view of their own admitted letter dated 8th September,

2004 (mark „A‟) quoted above, letter dated 29th October, 2005 (mark

„D‟) by which the defendant had threatened to cancel allotment of the

plaintiff for failure to pay installments and enclosing therewith a CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.14

revised/updated installments payment plan. The question of

cancellation of allotment will only arise if there is already an existing

legally enforceable contract/agreement between the parties and

breach of obligations stipulated therein.

23. The plaintiff has made payment of Rs. 86,45,987/- on various

dates from 2004 onwards till 24th June, 2006 for the shop. 97.5% of

the total purchase consideration was paid by the plaintiff and

accepted by the defendant. These payments have been made in

terms of the installments payment plan (mark E). The defendant has

accepted and encashed the cheques but is now alleging that the

plaintiff has no right to enforce obligations of the defendant without

execution of the commercial space flat buyers agreement and it is

wish and desire and not a legal obligation of the defendant to execute

commercial space buyers agreement. This plea is not acceptable.

24. It is a matter of common knowledge that builders execute

flat/Commercial Space Buyers‟ Agreement with the buyers who have

purchased flats/commercial space in buildings. Registered sale

deeds are not executed because of terms on which land is allotted to

the builders by Delhi Development Authority. The flat/Commercial

Space Buyers‟ Agreements are treated as documents of title and

ownership. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of

Income Tax versus Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported

in (1997) 227 ITR 625, examined the flat/Commercial Space Buyers‟ CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.15

Agreement and concept of ownership. It was observed that the said

concept has to be interpreted in a practical sense. The Supreme

Court also referred to with approval the need and requirement to

continuously update and construe law in accordance with changes,

ground realities to make it a living enactment, in tune with the present

state of affairs. (See, pages 646 to 648 in the said citation). The

contention of the defendant that the present Suit for specific

performance is liable to be dismissed, as no registered transfer deed

is envisaged or contemplated by the parties, but only another

unregistered document is to be executed is therefore liable to be

rejected. The plea of the defendant that the flat buyers and

commercial space buyers are completely remediless and at the

mercy of the builders even after they have already received the sale

consideration but legally continue to be registered owners of land as

they have not executed registered transfer deeds or complied with

the provisions of the Delhi Apartments Ownership Act is liable to be

rejected. In India, owner of land and owner of building or part thereof

may be different persons.

25. Reliance was placed on Modes Pvt. Ltd versus Shilpi Unitech

reported in 70 (1997) DLT 636. In the said case, it was held that a

contract shall not be held to be concluded and binding if the terms of

the said contract are not certain. In this case there was a

memorandum of understanding. The document was purported to be a

partnership, but was not witnessed by anyone, the document only CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.16

mentioned that the plaintiff was in possession of certain lands in

Andhra Pradesh and the two parties were to enter into the business

of developing the said lands. The document gave no details as to the

location of the land i.e.; Khasra Nos. etc., there was also no specific

details of the investments made by the two parties. Indeed the

contention of the defendant therein that a contract with uncertain

terms and condition was no contract at all and a party cannot be

bound by the same, is correct and was accepted, but in the present

case the two letters which are in no way uncertain. The letters clearly

give the schedule of construction and payments, the shop allotted to

the plaintiff has been identified along with the size of the shop. True

the letters do mention that a "Commercial Space Buyer‟s Agreement"

is to be executed, but the execution of the said document was not

uncertain rather it was a direct consequence of the payments being

made and the same being accepted. The "Commercial Space Buyer‟s

Agreement" was nothing but another name for the final deed. Just

calling it an agreement would not make it into a second agreement.

The letter/agreement was in every respect a complete binding

contract. It has all the essential ingredients of a concluded contract,

viz.; promise, consideration for the promise, acceptance and even

performance of obligations by one of the parties and by the defendant

also from 2004 till 2nd January, 2008. Further, a plain reading of the

written statement submitted by the defendant brings out the fallacy in

the argument that the letter dated 29th October 2005 (Mark „D‟) is not CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.17

a binding agreement. The defendant has admittedly sought to charge

interest from the plaintiff for allegedly going against the terms of the

said agreement, which has been said to be binding. Particular

reference can be made to paragraph 19 of the written statement, the

relevant reads as under:

"....She cannot seek the change or amendment of the terms and conditions of the allotment of the said commercial space. This Hon‟ble Court would not rewrite the agreement the agreement for her. The plaintiff is bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment..."

26. An agreement has to be binding on both the parties to a

contract. It would be odd for a party to seek to bind a party to the

terms of a contract, which is claimed by it to be a "no contract". This

contradiction after admission of the defendant goes against the

defendant.

27. Words of "Salient Terms and Conditions for Allotment" that "intending allottee shall not be entitled to enforce the same in Court of Law" places an embargo and bar on the plaintiff approaching the Court to enforce his rights, available under the Law. The said Clause seeks to absolutely restrict the plaintiff from enforcing her legal rights and to that extent is a covenant that seeks to restrain the plaintiff from initiating legal proceedings. The Clause is void in view of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. In this regard, reference may be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India versus New India Assurance Company Ltd and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1889 :

CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.18

"Every agreement, by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce this rights, is void to that extent.

The section is a departure from English law as there is no such statutory bar restraining parties from entering into such agreement. In Rehmatunnisa Begum versus Price, AIR (1917) PC 116 it was observed as a general principle that, „no man can exclude himself from the protection of the courts‟. The rationale obviously is to ensure protection against fair dealing even between unequal bargaining parties. The intention and objective being clear the courts‟ primary responsibility is to construe and interpret it in a manner so as to advance the objective and protect the interest of the party who might be frustrated by too technical and expensive approach in such matters. Further it is trite saying that the courts should lean in favour of construction which keeps the remedy alive, that is if two constructions are possible then the one favouring continuance of the suit is to be preferred than the one barring the remedy."

28. Decree on basis of admissions is a matter of discretion but when facts are admitted in the pleadings or in documents; judgment or relief can be granted. Facts of the case are admitted by both parties. There is no dispute about letters written inter-see the parties. Payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant of Rs. 86,45,987/- is accepted. In the written statement no dispute about facts is raised. On the said facts only one conclusion is possible. In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. versus United Bank of India, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120, it was observed :

"12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the Objects CS(OS) NO.50/2008 Page No.19

and Reasons set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled". We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."

29. In view of the above findings, application I.A. No. 7834/2008

under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code is allowed and a decree of

specific performance is passed in favour of the plaintiff with the

direction to the defendant to execute the Commercial Space Buyers‟

Agreement in respect of shop no. G-76 (approx. 717.55 sq. Ft) on the

ground floor in Ambi Mall, Plot no. 2, Vasant Kunj, Mall Complex,

New Delhi on payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the three belated

payments of instalments as mentioned in para 10 in terms of

Agreement dated 8th September, 2004 as modified by

letter/agreement dated 9th October, 2004. Defendant will calculate the

interest amount and communicate the said amount by a registered

letter to the plaintiff within six weeks. Application under Order VII,