NARESH CHANDRA JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that they are the owners of property No. C-1/52, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi having the carpet area on the ground floor of 2670 sq. ft. and on first, second and third floors of 2601 sq.ft. each, totalling 10,473 sq.ft. Before handing over the vacant possession of property on 17th December, 1973, the plaintiff No.1 had fully discussed the terms and conditions on which the plaintiffs were agreeble to lease it out with the Commander, Indo-Tibetan Border Police. Those terms and conditions through the letter dated 17th December, 1973 were communicated by plaintiff No.1 to the Inspector General of Police, I.T.B.P (Ministry of Home Affairs) Government of India, R.K.Purm, New Delhi. Rent was to be determined at commercial rate together with composition fee @ 20% of the rent as the property was to be used for office purpose by the defendant. It is stated that draft lease agreement dated 14th February, 1975 sent by the defendant to plaintiffs for signature (s) and registration, contained the rate of rent as Rs.6,216.00 per month provisionally which was contrary to the terms agreed upon at the time of taking possession of tenanted property by the defendant. In said draft lease agreement, lease was shown to have commenced w.e.f. 17th December, 1973. Said rent was fixed by CPWD on the basis of rates meant for residential user. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs were not paid rent from the date of taking possession of property till the draft lease agreement was sent by defendant and an impression was given that they would not get any rent unless the lease agreement was executed.

(2.) Plaintiffs had thus no option but to sign the lease agreement dated 14th February, 1975 and to get the same registered. While sending the lease agreement back after signature(s) to the defendant, the plaintiff No.1 forwarded a letter therewith dated 14th February, 1975 protesting against the fixation of rent at the above rate. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are entitled to have the rent fixed on the basis of commercial user @ Rs.1.15 per sq.ft. On the aforesaid total carpet area, the rent calculated @ Rs.1.15 per sq.ft. comes to Rs. 12.043.95 per month. It is pleaded that despite repeated correspondence, the defendant have failed to pay the difference in rent @ Rs.5,827.95 per month for the period from 17th December, 1973 upto 30th April, 1976 on which date tenanted property was vacated by them and the total amount of difference in rent comes to Rs. 1,66,096.57. It is further pleaded that defendant are liable to pay Rs.5,600.00 towards damage caused to tenanted property which was checked and verified on behalf of defendant at the time of handing over its possession of on 30th April, 1976. Plaintiffs are also entitled to claim interest on the said amount of difference in rent @ 12% per annum and total amount of interest payable upto the date of filling of suit comes to Rs. 12,694.03. It is claimed that aforesaid two letters dated 17th December, 1973 and 14th February, 1975 are to be read in conjunction with the lease agreement in the matter of determination of rate of rent of the property. It was prayed that a decree for Rs. 1,84,390.60 with costs and interest pendente-lite and future @ 18% per annum may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. It is alleged that lease agreement between the parties was executed on 26th February, 1975 and as the leased property had been designed and constructed for residential purpose, the plaintiffs cannot claim rent at commercial rate merely on the ground of property having been taken on lease for offical purpose. Rent @ Rs. 6,216.00 per month was assessed on the basis of measurements taken by CPWD. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs once having executed the lease agreement, cannot claim rent at commercial rate. It is denied that the rent fixed by defendant was provisional as alleged. Although, the receipt of the plaintiffs' letter dated 17th December, 1973 and 14th February, 1975 is not denied but it is stated that all the letters written by the plaintiff before the signing of lease agreement stood superseded on execution of the lease agreement. It is alleged that no undertaking either orally or in writing was given by any official of the defendant to pay rent over and above the rate assessed by the Directorate of Estate. It is denied that the plaintiff were forced to sign the lease agreement or they signed it under protest as alleged. Liability to pay the difference in rent @ Rs. 5,827.95 from 17th December, 1973 to 30th April, 1976, Rs. 5,600.00 towards the alleged damege caused to property and interest @ 12% per annum as claimed, is emphatically denied.