ANJINI DEVI Vs. V S T INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs in the premises measuring 2175 sq.ft. The premises was taken on lease with effect from 1.6.1986 for a period of five years. The lease was duly registered with the Sub Registrar on 29.5.1986. Before the expiry of the period of five years the landlords on 1.12.1994 wrote to the defendant that as the premises was required by them for their personal use they would not like to renew the same for a further period after its expiry on 31.5.1995. The original lease deed provided'that after the expiry qf the lease period the lease can be renewed by mutual consent for a further period .of five years at an increase of 25% of the last paid rent. It appears that the defendant was interested in continuing as a tenant in the premises and the parties, therefore, entered into negotiations and by a letter dated 27.1.1995 the defendant informed the plaintiff as under:

(2.) The defendant having agreed to continue as a tenant for a further period of five years on a rent of Rs. 85.00 per sq.ft. per month the plaintiffs purchased non-judicial stamp papers of the value of Rs. 22,300.00 for execution of the renewal lease deed. The lease deed duly typed on the non-judicial stamp papers was then submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff. However, before the same was executed the defendant on 1.6.1995 sent a telegram to the plaintiff that the defendant wished to renew the lease ' for office purposes for a further period of five years as per clause 17 of the lease deed dated 23.5.1990. The plaintiff was accordingly called upon to execute the lease deed in favour of the defendant. Since this telegram was not in accordance with the agrqunent arrived at between the parties, confirmed by the defendant by its notice dated 27th January 1995, the plaintiff on June 5, 1995 called upon the defendant to immediately execute the lease already written and approved and make the payment of advance rent as agreed between the parties. It was further stated in that notice that in case the advance rent was not paid within three days and fresh lease deed was not executed it will be presumed that the defendant was not interested in honouring the agreement dated 27th January 1995 and the plaintiff would become entitled to recover possession of the premises from the defendant whose possession would be unauthorised w.e.f. 1st June, 1995. On July 3, 1995 the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 3,81,175.00 being damages for use and occupation of the premises with effect from 1st June, 1995 till 3rd July, 1995 calculated @ Rs. 85.00 per sq. ft. The plaintiffs also stated in the plaint that the defendant is liable to p'ay mesne profits for their unauthorised use and occupation of the premises till they hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff @ Rs. 150.00 per sq.ft. per month.

(3.) On summons being served upon the defendant, the defendant filed its written statement alongwith a counter claim for specific performance of agreement to renew/grant lease as contained in clause 17 of the lease deed dated 23rd May, 1990. The plea taken in the written statement cum counter claim was that the letter dated 27th January, 1995 was written as a part of record of the discussions and with regard to the figure of "85", and not as an "agreement of all the terms". It is also stated that though certain drafts of the intended lease for renewal terms were made but nothing was finalised. It is further stated that the letter dated 27th January, 1995 was written with an understanding that the defendant was contemplating/insisting on an option for three renewals with 25% increase each time but on receipt of the letter the plaintiffs shifted their stand and were trying to trap the defendant by agreeing to the renewal of the lease only upto 31st May, 2000. It is not denied in the written statement that the market rate of rent at the relevant time was not Rs. 85.00 per sq. ft.