Delhi High Court
Siddhartha Kathpal vs Sandeep Gupta & Anr. on 2 December, 2015
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 812/2015
SIDDHARTHA KATHPAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Onkar Prasad, Advocate
versus
SANDEEP GUPTA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 02.12.2015
CM No.28992/2015 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
RFA 812/2015 and CM No.28991/2015 (stay) and CM No.28993/2015
(condonation of delay of 37 days in re-filing)
2. This is an appeal against judgment dated 03.08.2015. By virtue of the
impugned judgment, the suit filed by the respondents / plaintiffs for
recovery of money was decreed. The appellant/ defendant sought recovery
of rent, maintenance, water and electricity charges with interest qua property
described as: Shop No. 7 & 8, G.D. ITL, North, Ex. Tower, A-09, District
Centre, Wazirpur, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi (hereafter referred to as the
subject property).
2.1 Admittedly, the suit property was let out by the respondents /
plaintiffs via their attorney, one, Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta.
2.2 The lease deed executed between the parties was dated 19.01.2011.
This was a registered lease deed. As per the terms of the lease deed, rent at
the rate of Rs.90,000/- p.m. was required to be paid with effect from
01.02.2011.
2.3 The appellant/ defendant stopped paying rent from July 2011,
principally, on the ground that since the business was not good, he could not
make use of the subject property, which was admittedly, a commercial
premises.
2.4 It is in this context that the respondents / plaintiffs claimed rent at the
rate of Rs.90,000/- p.m. from July 2011 till June, 2012 along with interest at
the rate of 22% p.a. Furthermore, arrears of maintenance, electricity and
water charges amounting to Rs.79,749/- were also claimed with interest at
the rate of 24%.
3. The only defence which, the appellant / defendant set up before the
court below was that he was entitled to vacate the subject property and hand
over possession after giving a prior notice of 90 days. According to the
appellant / defendant, notice was given in that behalf vide letter dated
14.09.2011 (Ex. DW1/1).
4. The trial court based on the pleadings filed by the parties, framed the
following issues :-
"..(i). Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of
court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
(ii). Whether the suit has been properly filed by the plaintiff?
OPP
(iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of
Rs.12,68,649/- as prayed in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
(iv). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount of
Rs.11,88,900/-, if so, then at what rate and for what period? OPP
(v). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount of
Rs.79,749/-, if so, then at what rate and for what period? OPP
(vi). Relief.
5. The trial court, after perusing the evidence on record, came to the
conclusion that the respondents / plaintiffs were entitled to a recovery of
monies towards rent in the sum of Rs.11,88,900/- with interest at the rate of
8% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till realization.
5.1 Furthermore, the trial court awarded interest on the sum of
Rs.79,749/- from the date when the bills were issued (Ex. PW1/13 and
PW1/14).
5.2 In sum, the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed for a sum of
Rs.12,68,649/- alongwith interest.
5.3 The learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant relies upon letter
dated 14.09.2011 (Ex. DW1/1) to contend that no rent was payable beyond
that date i.e. 14.09.2011.
6. Before the trial court, a similar defence was taken, based on the
aforesaid letter. The trial court, however, came to the conclusion that the
keys to the subject property were handed over in court by the appellant /
defendant only on 07.01.2013. The trial court has also returned finding of
fact that there is no proof of service of the said letter and that the said letter
was silent with regard to the intent to vacate the subject property.
6.1 The learned counsel for the appellant / defendant has not been able to
draw my attention to any document which would persuade me to come to a
conclusion that these findings were either not borne out from the material on
record or, were perverse.
7. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, both, the appeal and interim application,
are dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
DECEMBER 02, 2015
yg
