Delhi High Court

Satish Kumar Mehta vs Union Of India & Anr. on 23 September, 2009

Author: S. Muralidhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      CS(OS) 264/2004 & IAs 1789-90/2004

                                        Reserved on: 21st August 2009
                                        Decision on: 23rd September 2009

       SATISH KUMAR MEHTA                         ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl with
                    Ms. Meghalee Barthakur, Mr. Rajiv Dubey
                    and Mr. Rajan Narain, Advocates.

                      versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                       ..... Defendants
                     Through: Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR


        1.Whether reporters of the local newspapers
          be allowed to see the judgment?                          No

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

        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes


                               JUDGMENT

23.09.2009

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The Plaintiff is a lessee of property No.182 Jor Bagh, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as `suit property‟). In this suit the Plaintiff inter

alia seeks the mandatory injunction to quash the letter dated 17th

December 2003 issued by the Defendant No.2, Land & Development

Officer (L&DO) under the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty

Alleviation, Government of India calling upon the Plaintiff to pay a sum

of Rs.48,57,924/- being the misuse charges and also file an undertaking,

as a condition for regularization of the breaches and withdrawal of the

order of re-entry. It also seeks the quashing of the letter dated 20th

February 2004, rejecting the request of the Plaintiff for reconsideration of

the aforementioned terms of regularization of the breaches and rejecting

the demand made in the letter dated 17th December 2003. The suit also

seeks a decree to injunct the Defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiff

from the suit property except in accordance with the due process of the

law.

2. The suit property is a plot measuring 410.89 sq. yds. It was purchased

as a leasehold property by the Plaintiff at an auction in 1963 for a

consideration of Rs.83,500/-. It was thereafter was built upon as a

residential property. It is at present a double-storied building with a

barsati. A deed of perpetual lease was executed on 18th October 1966 by

the President of India in favour of the Plaintiff Satish Kumar Mehta

whereby the suit property was given on perpetual lease to the Plaintiff for

a period of ninety-nine years.

3. Clause III of the lease deed set out the obligations of the lessee. In

terms of Clause III (7) the lessee would not, without the consent of the

lessor permit the demised premises "to be used for any purpose other than

that of a double storey residential building for a private dwelling house for

one or two families in all..." Under Clause V of the said lease deed, upon

any breach by the lessee of the covenants of the lease it would be lawful

for the lessor to re-enter the suit property. The proviso to the said Clause

entitled the lessor at its discretion to accept the payment of ground rent

which shall be in arrears together with interest at the rate of six per cent

per annum. Under Clause VI of the lease deed, no re-entry was to be

effected until the lessor served the lessee a notice in writing specifying the

particular breach complained of and if the breach was capable of remedy,

requiring the lessee to remedy such breach. The re-entry would be

effected only if the lessee failed, within a reasonable time from the date of

service of the notice to remedy the breach if it was capable of being

remedied.

4. It is stated by the Plaintiff that the ground floor of the suit property was

let out to M/s Organon India Ltd. for the purpose of residence of their

Executives in the year 1971 for a monthly rent of Rs.1300/-. The tenant

Organon India Ltd., misused the portion of the ground floor for some time

but stopped this misuser upon protest of the Plaintiff. A substantial part of

the misuse charges was paid to the Defendants. On the date of the filing of

the present suit, a sum of Rs.191/- remained to be paid so far as the

misuse of ground floor portion was concerned.

5. The first floor of the suit property was let out to M/s Consilium Pvt.

Ltd. in August 1971 for the residential purpose of its Director. The first

floor was vacated on 16th February 2002 at the conclusion of the eviction

suit filed by the Plaintiff. It is maintained that the Plaintiff had never let

out the suit premises for any purpose other than residential.

6. By a notice dated 30th September 1978, the L&DO, i.e., Defendant

No.2 informed the Plaintiff that the occupant of the first floor was using

the premises in contravention of Clause III (7) of the perpetual lease deed.

The plaintiff was also called upon to remedy the breaches failing which

action to re-enter the premises would be taken under Clause V of the lease

deed. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that this notice was although replied to

by him stating that the premises was not being used for any purpose other

than residential, no other communication was received from the

Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiff presumed that the matter had been

closed.

7. The Plaintiff claims that he was surprised to receive a notice dated 9th

August 1983/28th September 1983 from the L&DO informing him that the

suit property had been re-entered by the lessor on 9th June 1983. The

Plaintiff was also called upon to hand over the peaceful possession of the

premises on 24th August 1983. This notice was despatched by post only on

28th September 1983 and was received by the Plaintiff in the third week of

October 1983.

8. On receipt of the aforementioned notice, the Plaintiff filed a suit for

permanent injunction in the Court of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi

in November 1983 praying for a decree of permanent injunction

restraining the Defendants from taking action pursuant to the

aforementioned letter. Status quo was ordered by the trial court. On 18th

September 1992 the civil court recorded the statement of the counsel for

the Defendants that the Defendants would not dispossess the Plaintiff

without the due process of the law. In view of the said statement, the

Plaintiff withdrew the suit on that date.

9. According to the Plaintiff from 1985 onwards he kept writing to the

Defendants asking for information on the terms and conditions and the

amount to be paid to regularize the alleged misuse of the first floor of the

suit property by M/s Consilium Pvt. Ltd. According to the Plaintiff, the

Defendants did not bother to reply to these letters. It is maintained that

none of the inspections of the suit property by the Defendants was done

after a prior intimation or in the presence of the Plaintiff.

10. In July 1990, an eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1) b & k

of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the Plaintiff against M/s Consilium Pvt.

Ltd. This suit ultimately came to be decreed in 2002. It is stated that on

16th February 2002, the Plaintiff got the physical and vacant possession of

the first floor of the suit premises. By a letter dated 29th July 2002, the

Plaintiff informed the Defendants of the stoppage of the misuse and again

asked for the terms and conditions for regularization of the breaches. It is

thereafter that the letter dated 17th December 2003 was sent by the L&DO

stating that a sum of Rs.48,57,924/- was to be paid by the Plaintiff as

misuse charges and related interest, penalty and damages for

regularization of the breaches and withdrawal of the re-entry.

11. The Plaintiff‟s case is that the misuse was by the tenant without the

consent of the Plaintiff. At the highest the Plaintiff could have, after

becoming aware of the misuse, initiated an eviction petition which in fact

he did. Despite his repeated enquiries, the Defendants failed to inform the

Plaintiff about the misuse charges to be paid. In the letter dated 17th

December 2003, the Defendants mentioned the area being misused on the

first floor as measuring 1771 sq. ft. for the period from 15th July 1977 to

28th July 1981. The misuse area was reduced to 722 sq. ft. from 29 th July

1981 to 23rd April 1986. This area was further reduced to 629 sq. ft. with

effect from 24th April 1986 to 21st September 1987 and to 618 sq. ft. with

effect from 22nd September 1987 to 1st November 1994. However,

thereafter the area was shown as having increased to 1771 sq. ft. with

effect from 2nd November 1994 to 30th July 2002. This according to the

Plaintiff was arbitrary and based on fictitious inspection reports.

12. Without prejudice to the above pleas the Plaintiff submits that he not

liable to pay misuse charges for an area of 500 sq. ft. in terms of Office

Order No.7/83 dated 20th March 1983. In terms thereof, rooms being used

for professional work by occupants such as doctors, lawyers, architects,

engineers, chartered accountants, business consultants and journalists

would be exempted so long as the portion being used for professional

work did not exceed 30% of the covered area or 500 sq. ft., whichever

was less. The actual area of misuse would be the area of the bed-room and

the drawing-dining room which worked out to 952 sq. ft., and therefore

the entire first floor could not be treated as having been misused. After

reducing the area of 500 sq. ft. the misuser charges could be levied only

on 452 sq. ft.

13. A reference is made to the Clause 8 of the Office Order No.23/76

dated 31st March 1976 which states that in the event of the lessee or ex-

lessee filing a suit for eviction against the defaulting tenant on receipt of

the notice of misuse, and where the lessee is successful in evicting such

tenant, then one per cent of the charges would be recovered as token

penalty in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. Inasmuch as the

Plaintiff has in fact filed a suit which resulted in eviction of the tenant, the

above office circular would be applicable. Further as per Clause 7 of the

Office Order No.23/76 dated 31st March 1976 in cases where the charges

on account of change in use were found to be more than the income of the

lessee from the leased premises, the charges had to be reduced suitably.

The total rent received by the Plaintiff for the period 1st August 1971 to

16th February 2002, i.e., the period of misuse, was Rs.4,41,264/-. The

amount by way of damages could not therefore exceed the said amount.

Without prejudice to his rights and contentions, it is submitted in para 26

of the plaint that the amount of misuse charges cannot exceed

Rs.10,31,630/-.

14. The demand for a sum of Rs.55,866/- for the unauthorised area of 57

sq. ft. on the ground floor for the period from 24 th April 1986 to 15th June

2003 and for an area of 194 sq. ft. for the period from 16th June 2003 to

31st March 2004 is contested by the Plaintiff. According to him, the

structure was a temporary shed made of plastic sheets in the verandah on

ground floor and that in terms of the Office Order No.7/83 dated 22 nd

March 1983, the covering of a verandah was permitted. The area was

intended for protection against sun and rain and was removable as and

when required. It was also not visible from the road.

15. In the plaint it was stated that since the Plaintiff required urgent

orders, it was seeking exemption under Section 80(2) CPC from serving a

prior notice on the Defendants under Section 80(1) CPC.

16. By an order dated 20th March 2004, this Court issued a temporary

injunction restraining the Defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiff

from the suit property subject to deposit of Rs.10 lakhs by the Plaintiff

within three weeks. The said sum has since been deposited by the

Plaintiff.

17. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed on 5th July 2006.

The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. On behalf of the Defendant No.1,

one A.K. Aggarwal filed an affidavit by way of evidence. The recording

of evidence was completed on 19th May 2009. The submissions on behalf

of the Plaintiff were advanced by Mr.Sanjiv Bahl, learned Advocate and

on behalf of the Defendants by Mr.Rajesh Katyal, learned Advocate.

Issue No.1 : Whether the Suit is not maintainable because of non-

issuance of a Section 80 CPC Notice?

18. It is a fact that the Plaintiff filed an IA No.1790 of 2004 in these

proceedings seeking exemption from issuing notice to the Defendants

under Section 80(1) CPC. Despite notice in the said application being

issued way back on 23rd March 2004, no reply thereto was filed by the

Defendants. On a perusal of the contents of the said application, this Court

is satisfied that relief in this suit was sought urgently and sufficient ground

has been made out for waiving with the requirement of serving an advance

notice under Section 80(2) CPC. The suit is therefore not bad for want of

prior notice under Section 80 CPC. This issue is accordingly answered in

favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

Issue No.2: Whether the demand made by the Defendants towards the misuse charges, interest and penalty is bad in law and facts?

19. The first question that requires to be answered is whether there was

any misuse of the suit property. The case of the Plaintiff is that he

instituted a suit for eviction of the tenant from the first floor of the

premises on the ground of misuse. It is a different matter that the Plaintiff

claims that the actual area of misuse was only 452 sq. ft. and that 500 sq.

ft. was to be exempted as being permissible for the use of professional

purposes. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendants have not proved their

inspection reports as regards misuse and therefore he is entitled to succeed

on this issue.

20. Ex.P2 is a letter dated 21st July 1987 written by the tenant of the

premises Mr. M.L. Bhardwaj to the L&DO stating that the area of misuse

is 615 sq. ft., which according to him was 115 sq. ft. in excess of the

maximum permissible limit. The counsel for the Plaintiff submits that this

is consistent with the observations in the inspection report dated 22nd

September 1987 (Ex. DW1/6) which mentions only part of the first floor

being used for office (non-residential) purposes by Mr. Bhardwaj. It also

confirms the existence of an unauthorised construction in the courtyard on

the ground floor. The next inspection report of 2nd November 1994

however indicates that the entire first floor is being misused as office of`

`India Abroad‟ and `National Press Agency‟. It also speaks of the shed on

the ground floor. The counsel for the Plaintiff points out that the Overseer

on this document indicates that date as `2/11/84‟. However, the signature

of the Engineer on the right hand column indicates the date as 19 th

December 1994. The noting on this file explains that this signature was

appended after the date of the inspection on 2nd November 1994. It

appears that the date given by the Overseer was really a mistake and that

the inspection took place on 2nd November 1994.

21. Issue No.2 is answered by holding that the Defendants have been able

to show that during the years in question there was misuse of the

premises. Whether the demand raised was justified will be determined

hereafter while considering the issues that follow.

Issue No. 6 Whether the Defendants are estopped from raising the demand after the lapse of so many years?

22. The plea of the Plaintiff that after the re-entry notice dated 9th August

1983/28th September 1983 (Ex.DW1/5), the Defendants did not take any

action for many years and therefore were estopped from seeking to

recover misuse charges, is without merit. The Plaintiff himself filed a suit

for permanent injunction against the Defendants which was withdrawn by

him upon the statement given by the Defendants that it would not

dispossess the Plaintiff except in accordance with the due process of law.

The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 18th September 1992. That in

fact should be seen as a starting point for the Defendants to invoke the due

process of law against the Plaintiff, and thereafter the misuser charges

were calculated. Admittedly, the misuse continued till 16th February 2002

when the tenant was evicted. It cannot therefore be said that the

Defendants are estopped from raising any demand for misuser charges.

23. The decisions in Rattan Kaur v. DDA 145 (2007) DLT 283 and Prof.

Ram Prakash v. DDA 2007 RLR 565 cannot be said to be applicable to

the facts of the instant case. The Plaintiff here has filed a suit for eviction

of the tenant and has informed the Defendants that the misuse came to an

end with the eviction of the tenant. Also if the Plaintiff seeks to take

advantage of the Office Order No. 23/76 dated 31 st March 1976 which

restricts the penalty to one per cent then it cannot be heard to say that

there was no misuse of the premises at all. Issue No.6 is accordingly

answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants.

Issue No. 3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of circular No.23/76 dated 31st March, 1976? If so to what extent?

24. Clause 8 of Office Circular No.23/76 dated 31st March 1976 reads as

under:

"In case the lessee/ex-lessee files a suit for eviction against defaulting tenant on receipt of our notice for misuse and are successful in evicting such tenants, one per cent of the charges will be recovered as token penalty in consultation with the Ministry of Works & Housing and Finance."

25. By an Office Order No.8/1999 dated 6th April 1999 (Ex.DW1/1), the

position in law was further clarified by the L&DO as under:-

"Office Order No.8/99

With reference to Clause 8 of the Office Order No.23/76 dated 31.3.1976 certain clarifications were sought from the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment.

2. Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment in consultation with Finance Division & M/o Law decided

that "if any lessee, after receipt of our misuse notice files a suit for eviction against the defaulting tenants and succeeds in evicting such tenants, the lessee shall be liable to pay the misuse charges, irrespective of the fact that he/she got the tenant evicted through the Court. However, in such cases the penal charges shall be reduced to 1% instead of usual 10%."

This issues with the approval of L&DO."

26. The cumulative effect is that under the Office Circular No. 23/76

dated 31st March 1976 upon the lessee/ex-lessee filing a suit for eviction

against the default tenant, one per cent of the misuser charges would be

recovered as token penalty. In effect what is recoverable, would be the

misuser charges and in addition one per cent as token penalty. Under the

Office Order No.8/99 it was clarified that the penal charges would be

reduced to one per cent instead of the usual ten per cent. It was, of course,

clarified that the lessee shall be liable to pay the misuse charges. It is not

as if for the first time on 6th April 1999, the L&DO was demanding the

misuse charges in addition to the penalty. In terms of the Clause 10 of the

Office Order No.23/76 dated 31st March 1976, penalty was payable as

under:-

"10% Penalty

(i) Non-re-entered cases :-

10% penalty in addition to the additional charges for change of use will be charged up to the date of request for compromise plus 30 days thereafter, 10% penalty will not however, be charged on the damages for unauthorised construction.

(ii) Re-entered sites:-

10% penalty both in addition to the additional charges for

change to use and damages for unauthorised construction will be charged up to the date of withdrawal of re-entry plus 30 days thereafter."

27. It is plain from the above clause that there are two kinds of cases. One

is the non-re-entered cases and the other the re-entered ones. As far as the

Plaintiff is concerned, in view of the order dated 18th September 1992

treating his suit as withdrawn, the case of the Plaintiff must be treated as

non-re-entered case. Therefore, in terms of Clause 10, the Plaintiff would

have to pay 10% penalty in addition to the additional charges for the sum

misuse. This 10% penalty would stand reduced to one per cent if in terms

of Clause 8, the ex-lessee or lessee files a suit for eviction. Under the

subsequent circular of 8/1999, it was stated that the 10% penalty would be

reduced to one per cent. The Circular 8/1999, therefore, is only

clarificatory and does not reduce or increase an existing liability.

Therefore, the reliance placed by the Plaintiff on the decision in Govind

Das v. ITO (1976) 1 SCC 906 is misconceived.

28. In the present case, it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit

of Clause 8 of the Circular No.23/1976 as further clarified by the Office

Order No.8 of 1999. Reliance is placed on the decision in Birla Institute

of Scientific Research v. Union of India 53 (1994) DLT 342 and Justice

Sisir Kumar Sen v Union of India 1996 (39) DRJ 358 to contend that

what would be recovered was only one per cent of the misuser charges.

On a perusal of the judgment in Birla Institute of Scientific Research,

this Court does not find the said judgment to be holding that the 1%

penalty alone should be recovered and not the misuser charges itself.

Likewise in Sisir Kumar Sen, again the question really was about the

extent of penalty. This decision also does not hold that the need to pay the

misuser charges is to be dispensed with.

29. As regards Clause 7 of the Office Order dated 31st March 1976, it

reads as under:-

"7. In cases where the charges on account of change in use are found, beyond any doubt, to be more than the income of the lessee from the leased premises the charges will be reduced suitably according to the circumstances of each case in consultation with Ministry of Works and Housing and Finance. While doing so, the reasons for the inability on the part of the lessee to increase the income from the leased premises will, no doubt, have to be fully considered."

30. The Plaintiff has no doubt pleaded that the total rent received from the

premises during this period was Rs.4,41,264/- only. However, it cannot be

said that the Plaintiff has shown sufficient reason or its inability to

increase the income from the leased premises. Therefore, Defendants

cannot be faulted in not extending the benefit of Clause 7 of Office Order

dated 31st March 1976. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of circular No.7/83 dated 22nd March, 1983? If so to what extent?

Issue No. 5. What was the actual area of alleged misuse on the first

floor of the property no.182, Jorbagh, New Delhi?

31. The next question is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of

Circular No.7 of 1983 and if so to what extent? The plaintiff has urged

that the misused area could be only 115 sq. ft after accounting for an area

of 500 sq. ft. being the area of bed-room which was partly being misused

for residential purposes. It is seen from the inspection report dated 2 nd

November 1994 that indeed the area misused is shown as part of the first

floor and not the entire first floor. The area of misuse according to the

letter dated 7th December 2003 stood reduced to 629 sq. ft., for the period

24th April 1986 to 21st September 1987 and further reduced to 618 sq. ft.

with effect from 22nd September 1987 to 1st November 1994. It however

increased to 1771 sq. ft. with effect from 2nd November 1994 to 30th July

2002. This appears to be based on the inspection report of 2nd November

1994 which indicates the area of misuse as the entire first floor. However,

in the subsequent inspection report, it is stated that the misuse mentioned

in the inspection report dated 2nd November 1994 has been removed with

the eviction of the tenant. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of

the Plaintiff that there is inconsistency in the area of misuse shown in the

inspection reports.

32. After accounting for the benefit of Circular No.7/83, the Plaintiff has

in para 26 of the plaint, stated that "the misuser charges which the

Defendants have claimed in their letter dated 17th December 2003 in

clause C (1) to (16) amounts to Rs.42,11,604/- according to the plaintiff

this amount cannot exceed cannot exceed Rs. 10,31,630/-." This has been

reiterated in para 22 of the affidavit dated 15th September 2006 filed by

the Plaintiff by way of evidence. This amount appears to have been

arrived at after applying the rates of misuse charges as demanded by the

Defendant although on the reduced area. This Court is satisfied that the

Plaintiff has been able to prove that the actual area of misuse is what has

been claimed in the plaint on the basis of which the above figure of

misuser charges for the first floor has been computed by the Plaintiff. The

Defendants have not been able to prove to the contrary. Therefore, Rs.

10,31,630/- can be taken to be the amount payable by the Plaintiff for the

misuser of the first floor , after accounting for the benefit of the Circular

No.7/83. The further contention of the Plaintiff that he is only liable to

pay a token penalty which is one per cent of the said amount is however

not correct. He has to pay the misuser charges as well. One per cent of the

admitted sum of misuser charges of Rs.10,31,630/- works out to

Rs.10,316/-. Therefore, the total amount payable towards misuser charges

for the first floor is Rs.10,31,630 + Rs.10,316/-. Issues 4 and 5 are

answered accordingly.

Issue No.7. Whether the Plaintiff is not liable to pay any charges for unauthorized area 57 sq.ft. on ground floor and 194 sq. ft. on the ground floor in view of office Order No.7/83 dated 22nd March, 1983?

33. As regards the ground floor, the reliance is placed on the Office Order

No.7/83 dated 22nd March 1983 under which covering of the

verandah/enclosing of the verandah is permitted. According to the

Defendants, however, the said covering of the verandah is really an

unauthorised area and its extent has been increased according to the

inspection report dated 16th June 2003. The Plaintiff has not been able to

prove by independent evidence the nature of the construction on the

ground floor. Consequently, the plea of the Plaintiff in this behalf is

negatived. The issue is answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the

Defendants. It is held that the Plaintiff has to pay the amount of Rs.

55,866/- as demanded in the impugned letter dated 17th December 2003

towards damage charges

Issue No. 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?

Issue No.10 Whether the suit is barred by time?

34. The Plaintiff no doubt earlier filed a civil suit seeking injunction with

stood withdrawn on the assurance of the Defendants. However the cause

of action for the present suit arose with the demand letter dated 17 th

December 2003. Therefore the suit is neither barred under Order 2 rule 2

CPC nor is it barred by limitation, as it has been filed on 18 th March 2004.

Both issues 9 and 10 are answered in the negative and in favour of the

Plaintiff.

Issue No.8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to have the breaches regularized and entitled to have the re-entry withdrawn on the payment of Rs.1,17,565/-?

Issue No.11.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the Decree of Permanent and Mandatory Injunction and Declarations as claimed in the suit?

35. The amount payable by the Plaintiff as misuser charges for the first

floor has been indicated in the discussion hereinbefore. Accordingly, the

demand raised in the letter dated 17th December 2003 of the Defendants

towards misuser charges payable by the Plaintiff in respect of the suit

property would stand modified as under:

(i) Rs.10,31,630/- + Rs.10,316/- towards misuser charges for the

first floor

(ii) Rs.55,866/- for the misuse of the ground floor the Plaintiff.

(iii) Other sums demanded in the letter dated 17th December 2003

i.e. the sums under Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, Ground Rent under Head „A‟,

and Misuse Charges at Ground Floor under Head „B‟ to the extent

admitted by the Plaintiff in para 25 of the plaint (and in para 21 of

his affidavit dated 15th September 2006).

The above sums will be paid by the Plaintiff together with simple interest

at 10% p.a. from 1st January 2004 till the date of payment. The interest

rate is what is indicated in the calculations given by the Plaintiff himself.

Since the demand raised is as of 17th December 2003, the interest payable

will be calculated for the period 1st January 2004 till date of actual

payment. Against the sum so payable, the Plaintiff is entitled to adjust the

amount of Rs.10 lakhs deposited in this Court together with the interest

accrued thereon, and after payment of the balance amount within a period

of four weeks, the Plaintiff is entitled to have the breaches regularised.

36. The Plaintiff has already paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- which has been

placed in a fixed deposit under the directions of this Court. The said sum

together with the interest accrued thereon will be paid over to the