MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS COMPANY Vs. SEETA BADRINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 20.07.2006 by which the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,45,597/- alongwith interest at 9% per annum simple from 08.06.2001 till the date of payment. The suit amount is the amount which are the electricity dues which were payable for the period for which the appellant/defendant was a tenant in the tenanted/subject premises belonging to the mother of the respondent/plaintiff, and after the death of the mother of the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff has inherited the property. The property is 25 bighas (25,000 sq.yards) of land alongwith a farm house in village Satbari, Mehrauli, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant/defendant was inducted as a tenant in the subject farm house in terms of the Lease Deed dated 01.12.1990 for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 01.06.1990 at rent of Rs.4,000/- per acre for the first three years and thereafter a 10% increase for three years and a further increase of 10% for the balance period. It was further pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that in June, 1997, i.e. during the period of tenancy, an electricity bill was received for a sum of Rs.76,921/- and the respondent/plaintiff asked the appellant/defendant to correspond with the local electricity authority as to the amount of the bill. On the expiry of the lease, the appellant/defendant handed over possession on 03.07.2000 and at the time of handing over possession a document was executed by the appellant/defendant, i.e. a possession letter, which stated that all the dues which stood relating to the subject premises have been cleared by the appellant/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff however pleaded that subsequently on 29.05.2001 she was informed by the local electricity authority/Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) that there was a bill due for Rs.2,21,152.53/- for a period comprised in the tenancy of the appellant/defendant, and this bill the respondent/plaintiff paid because the respondent/plaintiff had in the meanwhile agreed to sell her property to a buyer Sh. Ashok Shroff and this bill was to be paid so that there is no dispute with the proposed buyer Sh. Ashok Shroff. One more electricity bill was issued by DVB for a sum of Rs.1,68,405.96/- and which was also paid by the respondent/plaintiff on 08.06.2001 and which was also towards electricity charges for a period within the tenancy period of the appellant/defendant. Thus two bills totaling to Rs.3,89,558.49/- were paid by the respondent/plaintiff and which covered period from 25.02.1992 to 01.06.2001 i.e. essentially within the lease period of 1990 to 2000. Since the suit premises were vacated in 03.07.2000, hence the respondent/plaintiff did not claim the entire amount of Rs. 3,98,069/- from the appellant/defendant but only claimed a sum of Rs.3,45,597/- alongwith interest. On account of non-payment by the appellant/defendant of the amount due towards electricity dues, the respondent/plaintiff ultimately issued a Legal Notice dated 17.08.2002, and which was replied to by the vague and evasive denial by the appellant/defendant by its Reply dated 04.09.2002, and to which the respondent/plaintiff gave a Rejoinder Notice dated 14.10.2002. Thereafter the subject suit was filed for recovery of Rs.3,45,597/- with interest.

(3.) The appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing it's written statement. It was pleaded by the appellant/defendant that no doubt the appellant/defendant was liable to pay charges for the electricity consumption but they had regularly paid all bills towards electricity connections in the suit property. The electricity connection was for agricultural power. It was also pleaded by the appellant/defendant that the parents and relatives of the respondent/plaintiff in fact used to regularly visit the farm house. It was also pleaded by the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff at the time of taking possession on 03.07.2000 had signed the document that no dues were pending of the appellant/defendant. Appellant/defendant pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff instead of verifying the exact liability, paid the electricity bills, and therefore, the appellant/defendant is not liable to reimburse the respondent/plaintiff.