Sikkim High Court
Smt. Januki Pradhan vs Zuventus Healthcare Limited on 22 August, 2024
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Chief Justice, Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Dated : 22nd August, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Com.A. No.01 of 2023
Appellant : Smt. Januki Pradhan
versus
Respondent : Zuventus Healthcare Limited
Appeal under Section 13(1A)
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. S. S. Hamal, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Mr. Tashi
Wongdi Bhutia, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Appellant.
Ms. Rachhitta Rai, Advocate for the Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The dispute between the Plaintiff (Appellant herein)
and the Defendant (Respondent herein), pivots around the
allegation of the Appellant that the Respondent, despite being in
possession of a godown owned by her at Majitar, Rangpo, had
failed to pay the licence fees of ₹ 45,000/- (Rupees forty five
thousand only), per month, owed to her from January, 2017 to
July, 2018. The total amount was computed as ₹ 8,55,000/-
(Rupees eight lakhs and fifty five thousand only), with pendente
lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. Money Suit No.278 of
2018 (Smt. Januki Pradhan vs. Zuventus Healthcare Limited) was
thus filed before the Learned Judge, Commercial Court, Gangtok,
by the Appellant for arrears of licence fees and consequential
reliefs.
2. The Learned Trial Court settled the following four issues
for determination;
Smt. Januki Pradhan vs. Zuventus Healthcare Limited 2
(1) Whether the defendant is liable to pay to the
plaintiff monthly licence fee of ₹ 45,000 per
month from January 2017 till date for
occupying the said premises?
(2) Whether as per clause 2.5 of the agreement
dated 12.01.2016 the plaintiff was supposed to
ensure uninterrupted transportation of goods of
the defendant between the said premises and
the main road and whether the plaintiff has
failed to provide peaceful possession of the said
premises?
(3) Whether the plaintiff had asked the defendant
to make the payment of ₹ 8,000 to Shri R. B.
Majhi which was to be adjusted with the final
rent payable while vacating the said premises?
(4) Whether there is any subsisting agreement
between the parties and whether the defendant
has already surrendered possession of the said
premises to the plaintiff?
(i) In issue no.1 the Learned Trial Court discussed Exhibit-
II, being the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 12-01-2016, by
which the Respondent inter alia agreed to pay to the Appellant a
sum of ₹ 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only), per month,
for use of the godown. The agreement was valid from 01-02-2016
to 31-07-2016. The Court noted that the Respondent however
continued to remain in possession of the godown even after 31-07-
2016, right up to June, 2017, which DW Deepak Kumar Verma
(General Manager of the Respondent-Company) admitted under
cross-examination. Vide Exbt-D1, being a letter dated 01-06-
2017, addressed to the Appellant, the Respondent expressed its
intention to vacate the godown and hand it over to her from 01-06-
2017. Exbt-D3, being the receipt of courier service would indicate
that the letter had been sent to the address of the Appellant on 13-
06-2017. It was opined that the letters dated 01-06-2017 (Exbt-
D1) and 10-06-2017 (Exbt-D2), clearly revealed the Respondent's
intention to vacate the premises with sufficient notice to the
Appellant. The Appellant cannot be permitted to be adamant by
claiming arrears on one hand and on the other hand not taking
Smt. Januki Pradhan vs. Zuventus Healthcare Limited 3
back possession of the godown from the Respondent. The Court
determined that the Appellant can be permitted to claim rent/fees
for the godown from January, 2017 to August, 2017 and not
thereafter. The Respondent therefore was liable to pay a total sum
of ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand only), with
interest @ 12% from January, 2017 to August, 2017.
(ii) In issue no.2 the Court observed that the Appellant had
failed to provide peaceful possession of the godown to the
Respondent despite clause 2.5 of the agreement dated 12-01-2016
(Exhibit-II), enjoining upon her to do so.
(iii) In issue no.3 it was concluded that the evidence of DW
Deepak Kumar Verma did not substantiate the issue raised and
decided it against the Respondent.
(iv) In issue no.4 the Court reached a finding that although
the Appellant may not have accepted possession of the godown,
the Respondent had surrendered its possession after May-June,
2017, the agreement between the parties having ended on 31-07-
2016, as per clause 2.1 of the agreement. Thus, only the mutual
understanding for payment of licence fees @ ₹ 45,000/- (Rupees
forty five thousand only), per month, till August, 2017, subsisted
between them.
3. On the anvil of the findings of the foregoing issues it
was ordered that the Respondent had to pay to the Appellant a
sum of ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand only),
from January, 2017 to August, 2017, with interest @ 12% for the
same period.
4. Before this Court, the Learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant while confining his line of argument to the allegation that
payment of ₹ 8,55,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs and fifty five
Smt. Januki Pradhan vs. Zuventus Healthcare Limited 4
thousand only), is due from the Respondent to the Appellant,
reiterated that there was no communication received from the
Respondent by the Appellant to indicate the intention of the
Respondent to vacate the premises. In the absence of such
indication, they were liable to pay licence fees from July, 2017, till
date, for its occupation.
5. Per contra, denying such liability, the Learned Counsel
for the Respondent contended that the agreement between the
parties, as proved by the exhibited documents, establishes that the
Respondent was in possession of the godown upto June, 2017.
The Respondent has no quarrel with the impugned judgment,
which requires them to pay a sum of ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees three
lakhs and sixty thousand only), with interest @ 12%, from January
to August, 2017, but they are not liable to pay the amount as
claimed by the Appellant.
6. We have duly considered the submissions advanced,
perused the pleadings and evidence on record. We have also
perused the assailed judgment. Whether the findings of the
Learned Trial Court suffers from any error requires to be
determined herein.
7. Exhibit-II is an agreement dated 12-01-2016, between
the Appellant and the Respondent, whereby the Respondent had
agreed to pay ₹ 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only), per
month, to the Appellant as licence fees for the said premises for
the period 01-02-2016 to 31-07-2016. On 01-06-2017, after the
said period terminated, the Respondent issued a letter to the
Appellant stating that, they would like to hand over possession of
the godown to the Appellant with effect from 01-06-2017. Another
letter dated 10-06-2017 (Exbt-D2), was also issued to the
Smt. Januki Pradhan vs. Zuventus Healthcare Limited 5
Appellant by the Respondent indicating their intention to vacate the
godown and also informing her that vide e-mail dated 26-05-2017,
the Respondent had issued a notice, one month prior thereto, that
they were vacating the godown, the period of agreement vide
Exhibit-II having ended on 31-07-2016. The Appellant was aware
of the terms of Exhibit-II. She was also well aware that there was
no renewal of the terms of the document at any time after its
expiry. No evidence of such renewal or enquiries made on this
facet by the Appellant appears to have been furnished before the
Learned Trial Court. The Appellant as observed by the Learned
Trial Court appears to be adamant about not accepting the vacated
premises. This is not permissible.
8. In conclusion, in view of the facts and circumstances of
the dispute, the submissions advanced and the records before us,
we are of the considered view that there is no reason to differ with
the findings of the Learned Trial Court on each of the issues as no
errors arise therein. We are in agreement with the Learned Trial
Court that the amount of ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and
sixty thousand only), is to be paid by the Respondent to the
Appellant for the period January, 2017 to August, 2017, with
interest as ordered.
9. The impugned judgment is accordingly upheld.
10. Appeal stands dismissed.
11. Copy of this judgment be forwarded forthwith to the
Learned Trial Court for information along with its records.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) ( Biswanath Somadder )
Judge Chief Justice
22-08-2024 22-08-2024
ds/sdl
