BHUSHAN STEEL LTD Vs. NEHRU PLACE HOTELS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal is in a narrow campus. The appellant had filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court questioning the maintenance charges demanded by the respondent herein. We may point out that the respondent M/s. Nehru Place Hotels developed an office complex known as 'International Trade Tower'. The appellants and the respondent entered into agreement dated 17.4.1993 vide which the appellant acquired certain rights in 12 apartments of the said tower. Apart from the consideration for selling the rights in these apartments, certain maintenance charges were allegedly payable which the respondent demanded. The appellants questioned the right of the respondent to levy and collect those maintenance charges. The appellants had, thus, filed CS (OS) No. 1693/1994 on an earlier occasion in this Court in which compromise agreement dated 17.12.1997 was entered into between the parties, which was recorded and the suit was decreed in terms thereof. Thereafter, the appellants filed the suit in question, i.e. CS (OS) No. 211/2005 seeking a declaration that the respondent was not entitled to claim maintenance charges, except the maintenance charges which were being actually incurred along with reasonable service charges. That is an issue which has to be decided in the impugned suit. We are concerned with the orders passed in the interim application (IA No. 1241/2005) filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, in which ex-parte injunction was granted on 18.2.2005 restraining the respondent from interfering in the use and enjoyment of the common areas and facilities enjoyed by the appellants in Block-F of the said tower. It was also directed that the appellant 'would reimburse the defendant, actual charges towards electricity, proportionate to their share in the property.' When the suit came up for hearing on 27.4.2005, the parties agreed for consensual interim arrangement and following order was passed:-

(2.) It is clear from the above that the appellants agreed to pay to the respondent maintenance charges @ Rs.29.03 per sq.ft. per month instead of complete maintenance facilities to be provided by the respondent. After the passing of this order, the respondent moved another application being IA No. 5031/2005 seeking a clarification of the aforesaid order stating that the appellants had not paid the amount of maintenance charges at the aforesaid rate of Rs.29.03 per sq.ft. It was also submitted that these maintenance charges did not include the charges for the electricity backup which the appellants desire to obtain from the respondent and were to be paid separately. Another clarification sought was with respect to car parking area charges claiming that the same was not included under the maintenance charges. This application is disposed of by the learned Single Judge clarifying that the appellants are to pay to the respondent the arrears of general maintenance @ Rs.29.03 per sq.ft. from 1.1.2003 to 30.4.2005 as well and that these maintenance charges are not only for future period but also for the arrears. It is also clarified that any such payment made would be subject to adjustment and the final decision in the case. The learned Single Judge has, however, not accepted the plea of the respondent that separate parking charges were payable. Insofar as payment of back up electricity is concerned, the appellants had conceded that the same would be paid subject to the final outcome of the suit.

(3.) In this appeal, thus, the appellants are concerned only with the clarification given with respect to payment of general maintenance charges @ Rs.29.03 per sq.ft. Contention is that no such consent was given that these charges are payable with effect from 1.1.2003 and the learned Single Judge has added words into the consent order dated 27.4.2005 by giving such a clarification.