Delhi High Court
Baliram Singh vs Radiant Cash Management Services ... on 15 May, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3413-DB
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15th May, 2023
RFA(COMM) 121/2022
+ RFA(COMM) 121/2022
BALIRAM SINGH ..... APPELLANT
versus
RADIANT CASH MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD
..... RESPONDENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Sh. Vaibhav Prakash, Advocate (through VC)
For the Respondent: Sh. Arav Kapoor, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant impugns the order dated 22.11.2021 whereby the
Commercial Court has decreed the suit for recovery filed by the
respondent seeking a recovery of sum of Rs. 9 lacs along with interest
@ 36% per annum.
2. Respondent is engaged in the business of providing cash
management services at various locations throughout the country. It
had taken on rent premises bearing no. 31, Ground Floor, F.I.E.,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.05.2023
17:08:25
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3413-DB
Patparganj, Delhi from the appellant on monthly rental @ of Rs.
1,50,000/- vide lease agreement 10.09.2015 for a period of nine years.
Respondent had furnished a security deposit equivalent to six months'
rent i.e. Rs. 9 lacs, refundable at the time of vacation of the premises.
3. The lease further stipulated that respondent would be entitled to
terminate the lease by giving a two months' notice in writing.
4. Respondent exercised his rights to terminate the lease and gave
a three months' notice dated 09.03.2016 proposing to hand over the
premises on 30.05.2016 and sought refund of the security deposit of
Rs. 9 lacs.
5. The premises were vacated on 30.05.2016. However, the
security deposit was not refunded.
6. Since the appellant failed to refund the security deposit amount
of Rs. 9 lacs, subject suit was filed. After service upon the appellant,
one Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the
appellant on 21.10.2019 and sought time to file written statement. No
written statement was, however, filed.
7. Despite lapse of over a year on 23.12.2020, the trial court had
noticed that written statement had not been filed and the period of 120
days stood expired from the last appearance of 21.10.2019. The right
to file written statement was closed and the case was placed for
evidence of the respondent. After 28.04.2021, defendant/ appellant
even stopped appearing in the suit. The evidence was recorded ex
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.05.2023
17:08:25
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3413-DB
parte and no cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the
appellant. Subject judgment was thereafter rendered by passing of a
decree in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 9 lacs along with
simple interest @ 36% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the
date of realization of actual amount.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is an error
in the appeal memo in as much as they have stated that respondent had
not paid rent for the last month, however, the rent for the last month
had been received.
9. He further submits that the respondent had caused substantial
damage at the time of vacating the premises as such the security
deposit was adjusted towards the damage caused. He submits that no
amount is liable to be paid to the respondent and in fact appellant has a
claim against the respondent towards the damage caused.
10. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel
for the appellant for the reason that appellant, when served with the
summon of the suit, failed to file written statement. Appellant even
failed to appear and cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent. In
view of the fact that no defence had been raised by the appellant to the
suit, there was no cause for the trial court not to pass the decree of
recovery as has been done.
11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that
substantial damage was caused is also not borne out from the record.
Apart from merely sending a reply to the legal notice, appellant had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.05.2023
17:08:25
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3413-DB
not made any claim against the respondent towards the alleged
damage caused to the premises. No set off, counter-claim or
independent suit has been filed by the appellant till date seeking
recovery of any amount, towards the alleged damage of the property.
It may be noticed at this juncture that the premises was handed over
by the respondent on 30.05.2016 and seven years have already elapsed
and till date no claim has been raised by the appellant.
12. It may also be noticed that subject suit is a commercial suit and
appellant failed to file the written statement within the period
prescribed by law. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the view
taken by the trial court in passing the decree for a sum of Rs. 9 lacs.
13. We may, however, note that the trial court has awarded simple
interest @ 36% per annum. This award of interest @ 36% is passed
relying on Clause-14 (i.e. Consequences of Termination) of the lease
agreement dated 10.09.2015 which stipulates that security deposit
shall carry interest @ 36% per annum compounded every month from
the date on which refund is due till its repayment.
14. We also notice that the lease agreement between the parties was
not registered. In terms of Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908,
respondent would not be entitled to enforce any clause of the
unregistered document. Consequently, respondent is not entitled to
interest @ 36% per annum in view of the fact that the lease deed was
not registered. Consequently, the judgment and decree to the said
extent is liable to be modified.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.05.2023
17:08:25
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3413-DB
15. We also notice that the trial court has awarded interest only
from the date of filing of the suit and no pre-suit interest has been
awarded and there is no reason mentioned in the impugned judgment
as to why the interest for the pre-suit period has been denied.
Consequently, we modify the decree to the extent that the appellant
shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9 lacs with simple interest @ 12%
per annum from 30.05.2016 till realization. The decree is accordingly
modified to the above extent. Decree-sheet be prepared in accordance
with law.
16. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
CM APPL. 55882/2022 (for condonation of delay in filing) & CM
APPL. 55883/2022 (for condonation of delay in re-filing)
17. Since we have already dealt with the case on merits, delay in
filing and refilling of the appeal is condoned.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MANOJ JAIN, J
15th MAY, 2023
dr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.05.2023
17:08:25
