KRISHNA SAIGAL Vs. KAMAL KUMAR MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants have filed this application under Order 14 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure if or framing of additional issues. The plaintiff did not file reply to this application. However arguments were addressed by counsel for the plaintiff.

(2.) A narration of Brief facts is necessary. The plaintiff being owner let out the ground floor of property No.S-48, Panchshila Park, New Delhi to defendants vide lease deed dated 9/02/1987 at a monthly rent of Rs.6,000.00. By a supplement agreement dated 26/05/1987, defendants 'were permitted to construct two bed rooms with attached bath and lobby on the first floor of the said building for the cost of Rs .3,00,000/- According Ao the plaintiff, said portion was treated to be under the tenancy of defendants at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000.00 to be adjueted against the cost of Rs. 3,00, OOO.00 A fresh lease deed dated 26th 7/12/1992 was executed. As per the plaintiff, both ground floor and floor; were let out to the defendants at a monthly rent of Rs.11,000.00. The plaintiff's claim is that the tenancy came to an end by efflux of time and it was also terminated finally by a notice dated 6/10/1997. The plaintiff has filed this suit for possession and for recovery of damages/mesne profits.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement have not disputed various agreements executed between the parties. However the defendants case is that they required more accommodation and the plaintiff had permitted them to, construct on the first floor and had agreed that she would let out even the first floor for a rent of Rs. 5,000.00 per month which would be payable w.e.f. the date of Occupancy Certificate granted by Government Authorities in that respect. The construction on the first floor was completed in June/July,1998 and the defendants informed the plaintiff to obtain the necessary Occupancy Certificate. The plaintiff instead of obtaining Occupancy Certificate agreed to sell the property in question to defendants at a sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000.00.The plaintiff executed a receipt dated 3/05/1998 for Rs.1,00, 000.00 as part consideration ,and an affidavit incorporating the terms of the agreement. The balance consideration was payable at the time of execution of sale deed. Requisite permission from various Authorities for sale was to be obtained by the plaintiff, which she never did. The defendants further case is that the relations between the parties being cordial, at the requests of the plaintiff, defendants had been giving further amounts, of money towards part consideration. It was also agreed at the, time of executing the agreement to Sell that defendants shall remain liable to pay rent at the prevalent rate, till the execution of the sale deed which could be increased by mutual agreement, had there been any delay in execution of the sale deed. Subsequently, it was also agreed that instead of Rs.6,000.00, a,sum of Rs.11,000.00 per month would be paid,as rent which could be Increased by 15% over the last paid rent after every five years. To this effect please deed dated 26/12/1992 was executed between the parties. This lease deed contained a clause of automatic, renewal of lease after, five years. The rent was also increased from Rs.11,000.00 to Rs.12,600/- per month giving effect to 15% increase as per the terms of the Iease deed. Aocordingly the defendants case is that till the execution of the sale deed, in pursuance to the agreement to sell, they are entitled to continue assonants in the suit. property on payment of agreed rent. After the receipt of notice by filing of the of the present suit, defendants filed a suit for specific perfomance of the agreement to sell against the plaintiff. In the present suit, plaintiff has filed a counter claim for specific performance of the agreement dated 26/12/1992 for grant/extension/renewal of lease of the property in question at a rental of Rs. 12,650/- per month from 27/05/1997 for a term of five years and on other terms and conditions contained therein with an option to defendants to have the said lease renewed/extended/have a fresh lease granted in their favour of the said premises for successive term of five years each time on the same terms and conditions.