RAJ SAROGI Vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), the defendant has prayed for summary rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint discloses no cause of action.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the above, application are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 34,00,242.00 along with interest and for mandatory injunction directing die defendant to hand over copy of the lease deed by which he took on rent premises No. S-51A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. It is alleged that the plaintiff rented out premises No. E-23, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to the defendant vide lease agreement dated 6th April, 1994 for a period of 3 years on monthly rent of Rs. 28.000.00 w.e.f. 10th May, 1994. The lease was to expire on 9th May, 1997 but the plaintiff required the accommodation earlier and requested the defendant to vacate the same by 30th September, 1996 offering him to refund the security, proportionate rental and hire charges. The defendant agreed to consider the plaintiff's request subject to his being able to find alternative accommodation. On 12th March, 1996 the defendant-vide fax message sought confirmation from the plaintiff that in case the defendant finds an alternative accommodation and decides to shift before the expiry of the lease term, the plaintiff would compensate him for "additional costs" including additional rental for the unexpired period of lease and security deposit, renovation expenses and other costs. The plaintiff agreed to do the same. An agreement was duly executed on 19th July, 1996 and as per its terms Rs. 3.00 lacs was paid in advance and balance of Rs. 100.00 lacs was paid by post-dated cheque on 13th August, 1996. The defendant vacated the premises and shifted to S-51A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi (for short the new premises). The plaintiff on 14th October, 1996 requested the defendant for supply of the copy of documents of lease of the new premises so as to enable him to file alongwith his Income Tax Returns. The request was rejected. These facts are not disputed.

(3.) It is further pleaded that the plaintiff came to know that new premises taken on rent by the defendant were on a plot of land measuring about 500 sq. yds. whereas the plaintiff's property was on a plot of land measuring about 1208 sq. yds. located in the better locality; that the defendant was not entitled to and had not incurred the amount obtained by him towards rent differential and towards renovation costs of the new premises under the agreement dated 19th July, 1996; and that the defendant by misusing his position had illegally and unjustly enriched himself taking advantage of the weak position of the plaintiff. It is thus prayed that the defendant is liable to furnish the requisite documents to the plaintiff regarding new lease and liable to refund the full amount of Rs. 34,00,242.00 which he had received unjustly under the agreement dated 19th July, 1996 and to compensate the plaintiff for the loss that he may suffer on account of non-receipt of the documents/ information.