KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. PARVEEN RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff - Sh. Krishan Gopal entered into a Collaboration Agreement (hereinafter "agreement") dated 14th February, 2013 with the Defendant - Sh. Parveen Rajput in respect of property bearing no.1/7211, Gali No.1, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, measuring 200 sq. yds (hereinafter "suit property"). At the time of the agreement, the property had only a single storey. As per the agreement, the Defendant had agreed to construct the stilt parking on the ground floor as also construct the upper ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. In consideration of the said construction, the Defendant was to become the owner of only the first floor and second floor without roof or terrace rights. The agreement was a detailed agreement. The demolition of the building was to be done by the Defendant. Skilled labourers and employees were to be engaged by the Defendant. The building was to be in conformity with the bye-laws of structural safety and have a good standard of finishing. Lift facility was to be provided. In addition, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.68,80,000/-. Construction was to commence on 1st March, 2013 and was to be completed by 28th February, 2014 i.e., a period of 12 months. The relevant clause in respect thereof is set out below:

(2.) As per Clause 19 above, if the construction was not completed within the stipulated period, a sum of Rs.2% on the total cost of construction was to be paid as penalty per month till possession was handed over. The agreement contained an arbitration clause which is reproduced below:

(3.) According to the Plaintiff, the construction work came to a halt sometime in 2014-15. The Plaintiff had various grievances including that the Defendant was using sub-standard material and not installing a well-known brand of lift. The Defendant also did not make the payments as agreed under the agreement. Since the Defendant did not complete the work, the Plaintiff who had moved out of his own property and who was paying rent, got the work completed out of his own funds. The Defendant also entered into an agreement to sell, for sale of the second floor and received a sum of Rs.46 lakhs from the said third party. This led to litigation being filed by the said third party - Mr. Jain against the Plaintiff. Various allegations have been made by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. Finally, vide notice dated 11th June, 2018, the Plaintiff terminated the agreement and also published a notice in two newspapers, that the agreement was terminated. The Plaintiff, claims compensation and punitive damages against the Defendant. The following reliefs are sought: