MOHAN CHAND Vs. MANINDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement in writing dated 22-7-1953 executed by the defendant, for possession of a shop room, for compensation in addition to specific performance and for other reliefs. .

(2.) The defendant is a monthly tenant of a shop room in premises No. 2 Lal Bazar Street, Calcutta paying rent of Rs. 110/- per month. He sublet a portion of this shop room to a firm known as National Marble Company at Rs. 60/- per month. By the agreement in suit, the defendant agreed to sublet the whole of the shop room to the plaintiff including the portion occupied by National Marble Company in consideration of Rs. 7,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to him besides a sum of Rs. 110/- by way of monthly rent. The document provides that the plaintiff is to have no liability for taxes or any charges in respect of the holding. The important clauses of the document wherein the plaintiff is described as the first party and the defendant as the second party are as follows:

(3.) The plaintiff alleges in his plaint that after the execution of the above and payment of Rs. 101/- by way of earnest, the defendant made over certain documents relating to his tenancy rights to the plaintiff's lawyer. It is, further, alleged that the plaintiff applied to the defendant on several occasions to perform specifically the agreement on his part but the defendant failed and neglected to do so. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, there is the usual averment of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the agreement by paying the balance of consideration to the defendant. In paragraph 8, the plaintiff charges the defendant with negotiating with other parties to let out the said shop room on higher premium. The plaintiff claims not only specific performance of the agreement but also damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful refusal to act in terms of the agreement. Particulars of such damages are given at the foot of para. 9, as loss suffered by placing orders with different tea companies and being unable to deliver goods for want of the shop room and, secondly, loss suffered in respect of the profits which could not be earned for want of the shop room. In para. 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff claims refund of the sum of Rs. 101/- paid as earnest in case the Court does not direct specific performance and claims a further sum of Rs. 5,448/- as damages, full details whereof are given at the foot of the said paragraph, the most important item thereof being an alleged loss of trade amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.