DEENAR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KHODAY DISTILERIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for possession of the Basement of B-2/1, B-2/2 and B-2/3, (measuring 1555 sq. ft.) of Deenar Bhawan, 44, Nehru Place, New Delhi together with mesne profits from 1.7.92 and recovery of maintenance and other charges. It has been averred in the Plaint, that the monthly rent was Rs. 5441.00 (Rs. Five thousand four hundred forty one only) which was liable to be increased by 15 per cent after the expiry of three years in the event of the lease being renewed; that renewals did take place from time to time culminating in the rent last paid being Rs. 8274.00 (Rs. Eight thousand two hundred Seventy four only) per mensem. Service charges were payable by the Defendant @ 40 paise per sq. ft. with effect from 1.12.1991, apart from electricity consumption and difference in House Tax. The Defendant is alleged to have stopped paying rentals form November 1991 onwards. As a sequel, the lease was terminated through a notice dated 15.5.1992 issued by registered Post, calling upon the Defendant to hand over possession of these premises on the midnight of 30.6.1992.

(2.) Another notice dated 26.11.1992, for handing over possession of the premises and for payment of monthly damages @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. i.e. Rs. 15,550.00 (Rs. Fifteen thousand five hundred fifty only) from 1.7.1992 is stated to have been issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Yet another notice appears to have been dispatched demanding vacation of the premises on 30.4.1993, and mesne profits Rs. 20.00 per sq. ft. with affect from 1.5.1993. The arrears have been quantified at Rs. 7,50,856.33 (Rs. Seven lakhs fifty thousand eight hundred fifty six and Thirty three paise only) and further damages at the rate of Rs.31,000.00 (Rs. Thirty one thousand only) per month.

(3.) The claims of the Plaintiff have been disputed/denied by the Defendant in its Written Statement in the context of the service charges since the demised premises are stated to have been water logged due to lack of maintenance; electricity dues stated to have been paid till July 1992 whereafter the connection was discontinued; and that the Lease Deed fastened liability for payment of House Tax on the Plaintiff. Thereafter there is a bald averment that all rents have been paid till the Written Statement; it has been admitted that some defaults did occur, which were due to financial difficulties of the Defendant. The receipt of the notices dated 15.5.1992 and 26.11.1992 have not been denied, but its validity has been cryptically assailed, presumably for the reason that there was no occasion to justify its issuance. There is only an evasive denial of the service of the notice dated 18.3.1993 and of the date on which the cause of action arose, which in my opinion, is not sufficient to give rise to an 'issue' on these points.