TATA FINANCE LTD Vs. P S MANGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,53,824/- instituted by the Tata Finance Ltd. through its attorney Mr. Anil Sharma. The plaintiff ? company had taken flat No. 401, New Delhi, House 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ? 110 001 admeasuring 1076 sq. ft. and comprising of one hall and a toilet on rent, from defendants 1 to 3 for a period of three years vide regiS.stered lease deed executed on 18.04.1995. Vide another agreement of the same day, defendant No.4 leased the furnishings and fittings provided in the aforesaid premises to the plaintiff company, for the same period. A sum of Rs.25,82,400/- was deposited by the plaintiff company as security vide yet another agreement executed between the plaintiff company and all the four defendants on the same date.

(2.) CLAUSE 17 of the lease agreement gave an option to the plaintiff company to renew the lease for a further term of three years by giving notice in writing, by registered post at least six months before the expiry of the lease term, on the same terms and conditions except that in case of renewal, the rent was to increase 25% from the last paid rent. In case of renewal, a fresh lease agreement was to be executed on the stamp papers of appropriate value at the cost of the plaintiff company. It was further stipulated in CLAUSE 17 of the lease agreement that the lessee would be entitled to vacate the premises after giving a prior six English calendar months notice during the initial or renewed lease term. On expiry of six years, the lessee was to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the lessor unless the lease was renewed by execution of a fresh lease agreement. The security deposit was to be refunded to the lessee without any interest on the expiry of the said lease or the vacation of the said premises by lessee, whichever is earlier, against handing over peaceful vacant possession of the flat, furnishings and fittings in good condition and after deducting dues, if any.

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 2 to 4 have contested the suit and have also filed a counter claim for recovery of Rs.19,18,079/- from the plaintiff company. They have denied the authority of Mr. Anil Sharma to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. It has been claimed by them that defendant No.1 had gifted his share in the tenanted premises to defendant No.3 on 31st October, 1998 and the plaintiff was informed accordingly. On merits, execution of registered lease deed dated 18th April, 1995 has been admitted by the contesting defendants, who have claimed that the lease deed as also the agreement with respect to furnishing and fittings expired by efflux of time on 31st March, 2001. The contesting defendants have denied receipt of letters dated 16th December, 1998 and 14th May, 1999. They have, however, admitted receipt of letter dated 14th July, 1999 from the plaintiff company. They have also claimed that the plaintiff company wrongly stopped payment of rent with effect from September, 1999. The receipt of plaintiffs letter dated 29th September, 1999 has also been admitted by the contesting defendants. This is also their case that no notice terminating the tenancy in terms of Clause 17 of the lease agreement dated 18 th April, 1995 was given by the plaintiff company to them at any point of time and, therefore, the lease expired only by efflux of time on 31st March, 2001. The contesting defendants have claimed rent at the rate of Rs.1,34,500/- per month for the period from 1st September, 1999 to 31st March, 2001, Rs.4,03,500/- towards damages for use and occupation at the same rate for the period 1st April, 2001 to 31st June, 2001, Rs.48,984/- towards maintenance charges payable to the Capital Maintenance Society, Rs.12,09,381/- towards increase in property tax for the years 1995-96 to 2000- 2001, Rs.1,05,114/- towards charges for use of electricity and water upto February, 2001 and Rs.18,000/- towards ground rent and insurance for the period of 1 st April, 1995 to 31st March, 2001. They have also claimed Rs.1,60,000/- towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the balance amount after adjusting the security deposit. Thus, an amount of Rs.19,18,079/- has been claimed by the defendants after deducting the security deposit of Rs.25,82,400/-.