PURNIMA DHAWAN Vs. AGMOZ ONLINE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the plaintiffs' application under Order 39 Rule 10, CPC (IA. No. 8843/2001) for directions to the defendants to pay the rental arrears/ damages/mesne profits and the defendants application under Section 151, CPC (IA. No. 3521/2002) for modification of order dated 20th March, 2002 passed in CCP. No. 37/2002 and order dated 19th October, 2001 passed on the application under Order 39 Rule 10, CPC. By this order, I also propose to dispose of the contempt petition (CCP. 37/2002).

(2.) In the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent, the plaintiffs have alleged that premises in question being the ground floor of the building D-302, Defence Colony, New Delhi were let out to the defendant company on payment of Rs. 40,000/- as monthly rent (Rs. 25,000/- towards rent + Rs. 15,000/- towards watch and ward) w.e.f. 1st July, 2000 by virtue of unregistered lease agreement dated 29th June, 2000 and watch and ward agreement of the same date. The relationship of the parties is not disputed nor the execution of the two agreements is in dispute. The fact that interest free security deposit of Rs. 1,60,000/-, refundable at the time of vacation of the demised premises, was paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the lease agreement, is also not in dispute. Admittedly, for four months i.e. 1st July, 2002 to October, 2000, the defendant paid the rent. The defendant, however, stopped paying the same w.e.f. November, 2000.

(3.) The defendant's case is that on account of some construction on the first floor of the demised premises, defendant could not enjoy the premises as there was constant disturbance on account of the construction. There is some correspondence between the parties on this issue. The defendant had sent on e-mail dated 22nd February, 2001 stating that for eight months, the defendant would be deducting the amount of Rs. 10,000/-,per month towards damages for non-enjoyment of the premises. This indicated that the defendant, as per this letter, had admitted his liability to pay at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- for the said period. The defendant's further claim is that the plaintiffs had in fact not provided any security as contemplated under the Watch & Ward Agreement.