1 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD
Tuesday, the 10th day of March, 2020
Present: Smt. C.SUMALATHA
Chief Judge
O.S.No.51 of 2011
Between:
M.Shyam Kumar @ Shyam Mantri, S/o.M.Chandrasekhar Rao, Aged 41 Years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-9-312-E/7, Achuta Reddy Marg, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad – 500 044.
..Plaintiff
And
M/s.VLCC Health Care Limited, with its Registered Office at M14, Greater Kailash, Part – II, Commercial Complex, New Delhi & also carrying on business at Premises No.8-2-293/82/L/283-A/1, (First Floor) situated at MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep., by Y.Radha Krishna Murthy, S/o. Y.Laxmi Narayana, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, R/o.H.No.1-2-343/26,
Domalguda, Hyderabad – 500 029. ..Defendant
This Original Suit coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.H.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of
Sri Sarosh Bastawala, Advocate for the Defendant and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit for recovery of money.
2.The facts of the case as projected by the plaintiff through the amended plaint are that, the plaintiff is the owner of the building located on Plot No.283/A, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, 2 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
Hyderabad and the defendant obtained first floor portion of the said building on lease for a period of nine years through a registered lease deed dated 13.04.2009 agreeing to pay rent @ Rs.3,77,000/- per month initially and the possession of the property was delivered.
3.It is narrated that though the monthly rent was fixed at
Rs.3,77,000/-, in view of the representation of the defendant that there is shortfall in the area and the rent payable is only Rs.3,70,000/- per month, the plaintiff agreed for the same, and thus, the defendant paid rent @ Rs.3,70,000/- per month upto the end of March 2009 and during
April 2009, the defendant approached the plaintiff and represented that there is slack in business and requested for temporary adjustment to tide over the situation and informed that he would pay Rs.2,50,000/- per month and accordingly he paid rent at the said rate from April 2009 to
May 2010.
4.It is stated that through letter dated 05.03.2009, the plaintiff made it clear that, if the negotiation could not be culminated, the rent would be at the original agreed rate @ Rs.3,70,000/- per month, but the defendant failed to pay the agreed rate of rent, and therefore, the 3 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
plaintiff got issued notice dated 05.05.2010 terminating the lease and the defendant was called upon to clear the outstanding amount and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession, but the defendant gave reply with several untenable claims.
5.It is submitted that the lease deed with agreed terms was duly registered, and thereafter, no agreement or arrangement was registered, and therefore, a substituted contract is unenforceable, and as such, the defendant is at liability to pay Rs.3,70,000/- per month and after issuance of notice, the defendant requested the plaintiff not to take any action, and therefore, the plaintiff did not take any further steps, but to the surprise of the plaintiff, the defendant paid rent for the month of June 2010 @ Rs.2,35,000/- per month and the same was received by the plaintiff under protest and the plaintiff got another notice dated 16.09.2010 issued calling upon the defendant to arrange the balance, but the defendant gave reply with false claims and the reduction in payment of rents by the defendant as initially agreed, was only a temporary arrangement and the original terms and conditions would continue to be in force and as the defendant insisted to communicate in 4 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
writing with regard to the arrangement / understanding, a letter dated 05.03.2009 was addressed and in the said letter it is specifically mentioned that the rent of Rs.2,50,000/- would be applicable only for two years with effect from 01.04.2009 and the plaintiff specifically informed the defendant that if the negotiations could not be reached, the rent would be Rs.3,70,000/- with effect from 01.04.2010, but the defendant continued to pay rent of Rs.2,50,000/- even from April 2010 and though the plaintiff mentioned in his email dated 16.04.2010 that the rent of Rs.2,50,000/- would continue for six more months, it is specifically mentioned that the terms would be effective after the lessor and lessee signed in the agreement and the plaintiff consented for reduction of rent purely on humanitarian grounds, but as the defendant continued to pay the rent @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month, the plaintiff issued a final notice dated 10.07.2013 and the defendant vacated the premises with effect from 11.02.2014 and the plaintiff received the possession of the premises under protest and the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent and service tax though he vacated and further the defendant damaged the premises.
5 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
6.It is also stated that the defendant originally paid a sum of
Rs.22,62,000/- towards interest free refundable deposit, which was to be refunded at the time of the defendant vacating the premises after adjusting the amounts towards arrears of rent and other charges, and thus, excluding the said security deposit, the total arrears, which is payable by the defendant is Rs.96,17,048/-, and therefore, the suit for recovery of the said amount together with interest @ 18% per annum.
7.The defendant filed written statement submitting that himself and the plaintiff entered into an agreement through a registered lease deed dated 13.04.2008 and even though as per the said lease deed, the initial rent was fixed @ Rs.3,77,000/-, but as the rents fixed was on per square basis, as the rented area got reduced, the rent for the leased premises was also got proportionately reduced to
Rs.3,70,000/- and in confirmation of the said fact, a letter dated 20.08.2008 was executed by the plaintiff.
8.The defendant contended that in the month of March 2019, there were negotiations again and the rent including maintenance was agreed to be Rs.2,50,000/- instead of Rs.3,70,000/- per month with 6 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
effect from 01.04.2009 and it was further agreed that the said rent would be applicable for two years thereafter and in confirmation of the same, the plaintiff wrote a letter dated 05.03.2009, and therefore, he paid rent @ Rs.2,50,000/- till April 2010, and thereafter, they agreed to continue on the same rent, but to his surprise, the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 05.05.2010 demanding Rs.20,96,803/-, and further, seeking to terminate the lease deed and after his representative contacted the plaintiff and discussed, the plaintiff on 21.05.2010 sent an email and requested him to ignore the said legal notice and offered to meet later to renegotiate, and further stated that in case such a meeting could not be arranged, the rental amount shall remain at Rs.2,50,000/-, but, surprisingly, the plaintiff sent another legal notice dated 16.09.2010 repeating the same false claims and he issued appropriate reply and only because the plaintiff renegotiated and reduced the rent, he continued to occupy the suit schedule property and otherwise he would have opted for alternative accommodation for a lower rent and the plaintiff is desperately trying to make illegal demands, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.
7 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
9.The defendant also filed additional written statement contending that the plaintiff cannot act in piece-meal and he on one hand is admitting that he reduced the rent from Rs.3,77,000/- to
Rs.3,70,000/- and on the other hand, denying the reduction of rent to
Rs.2,50,000/- and with respect to the service tax, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to pay the same and further he has vacated the suit premises in good condition except normal wear and tear, and further the plaintiff despite of having agreed to the monthly rent of
Rs.2,50,000/- vide letter dated 05.02.2009 and emails dated 16.04.2010 and 21.05.2010, is now claiming the suit amount with ulterior motive, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
10.On the strength of the above pleading, initially my learned predecessor in office framed the following issues on 21.02.2013 for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount or any part thereon? And, if so, what amount? What is the liability of the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim subsequent/future interest? And, if so, at what rate, and for what period and on what amount?
8 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
3) Whether the registered lease agreement
dated 13.04.2008 is true, valid and binding on the
defendant?
4) Whether the letter dated 05.03.2009 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff and whether the said letter was acted upon by the defendant?
5) Whether the letter dated 05.03.2009 superseded the registered lease agreement
dated 13.04.2008?
6) Whether the subsequent correspondence is valid? And if so, what is the effect of such correspondence on the terms of the lease agreement?
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim or any part thereof pursuant to the lease agreement dated 13.04.2008?
8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from making the present claim?
9) To what relief?
11.Later the following additional issues were framed on 13.10.2017:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as per the revised claim?
2) Whether the defendant contravened the terms of the registered lease deed and denied the quantum of rents?
3) Whether the alleged letters relied on by the defendant supersede the registered lease deed executed in between the plaintiff and the defendant?
12.The plaintiff to establish his claim examined himself as
PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A40. On the other hand, the defendant got marked Exhibits B1 to B10 through PW1.
9 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
13.Gone through the contents of the written arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff and also the decisions relied upon. Heard on defendant’s side.
14. ISSUE NOS: 3, 4, 5, 6 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.3:
3) Whether the registered lease agreement
dated 13.04.2008 is true, valid and binding on the
defendant?
4) Whether the letter dated 05.03.2009 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff and whether the said letter was acted upon by the defendant?
5) Whether the letter dated 05.03.2009 superseded the registered lease agreement
dated 13.04.2008?
6) Whether the subsequent correspondence is valid? And if so, what is the effect of such correspondence on the terms of the lease agreement?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.3:
Whether the alleged letters relied on by the defendant supersede the registered lease deed executed in between the plaintiff and the defendant?
The entire claim of the plaintiff is as per the terms and conditions of Exhibit A1, which is the registered lease deed dated 13.04.2008.
15. Before dwelling into the discussion over the points in disagreement, the undisputed facts are detailed as under:
10 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
1. The plaintiff is the owner of the building, which is standing on Plot No.283/A located at MLA Colony,
Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
2. The defendant obtained a portion of the said building on lease from the plaintiff.
3. The lease agreement was entered into and the same was got registered as evidenced through
Exhibit A1.
4. The defendant initially agreed to pay rent @
Rs.3,77,000/- per month.
5. Rent free accommodation was given for 75 days.
6. Subsequently, there was an understanding and in pursuance of the said understanding, the rent was reduced from Rs.3,77,000/- to Rs.3,70,000/- per month.
7. In respect of the rent payable, there was several exchange of mails and notices.
8. The defendant paid rent @ Rs.3,70,000/- per month for some time, Rs.2,50,000/- per month for some time and Rs.2,35,000/- per month for some time.
9. The defendant paid Rs.22,62,000/- to the plaintiff as a refundable security deposit.
10. The defendant vacated the premises with effect from 11.02.2014 and the plaintiff received the possession.
16.The claim of the plaintiff is seriously resisted by the 11 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
defendant on the ground that the plaintiff himself consented and accepted for reducing the rent, and therefore, the amount was paid as agreed upon and not as per the terms and conditions of Exhibit A1. On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that though he agreed for reduction of rent in view of the circumstances and hardship projected by the defendant, he did not accept for the said reduction giving go-bye to the terms and conditions of Exhibit A1, and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the rent as per the conditions of Exhibit A1 only.
17.Projecting his contentions in this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff in the written arguments filed, contended that the defendant is bound by the terms and conditions of Exhibit
A1 and all the amounts that were received by defendant was under protest and the documents filed establishes the said fact, and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the balance amount.
18.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the lease deed and they are not expected to deviate, and any oral understandings in deviation of the written contract are unenforceable and cannot be appreciated, and thus, the claim of 12 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
the plaintiff has to be honoured as per the contents of Exhibit A1. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is reported in 2000 (7) Supreme Court Cases 104, between S.Saktivel (Dead)
By L.Rs. Vs. M.Venugopal Pillai and Others, wherein, their
Lordships at Para No.6 held as follows:
“In sum and substance what proviso (4) to
Section 92 provides is that where a contract
or disposition, not required by law to be in
writing, has been arrived at orally then
subsequent oral agreement modifying or
rescinding the said contract or disposition
can be substantiated by parol evidence and
such evidence is admissible. Thus, if a party
has entered into a contract which is not
required to be reduced in writing but such a
contract has been reduced in writing, or it is
oral, in such situations it is always open to
the parties to the contract to modify its terms
and even substitute by a new oral contract
and it can be substantiated by parol
evidence. In such kind of cases the oral
evidence can be let in to prove that the
earlier contract or agreement has been
modified or substituted by a new oral
agreement. Where under law a contract or
disposition is required to be in writing and
the same has been reduced to writing, its
terms cannot be modified or altered or
substituted by oral contract or disposition.
No parol evidence will be admissible to
substantiate such an oral contract or
disposition. A document for its validity or
effectiveness is required by law to be in
writing and, therefore, no modification or
alteration or substitution of such written
document is permissible by parol evidence
13 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
and it is only by another written document
the terms of earlier written document can be
altered, rescinded or substituted. There is
another reason why the defendant-appellant
cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence
to substantiate the subsequent oral
arrangement. The reason being that the
settlement deed is a registered document.
The second part of provision (4) to Section
92 does not permit leading of parol evidence
for proving a subsequent oral agreement
modifying or rescinding the registered
instrument. The terms of registered
document can be altered, rescinded or
varied only by subsequent registered
document and not otherwise.”
On the same aspect, the learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which is reported in Laws (DLH) 2008 (8) 345, between Hindustan Lever
Limited Vs. Dan Singh Bawa, Savitri Bawa, Anand Singh Bawa,
Anoop Singh Bawa.
19.Assailing the said submission and contention, the learned counsel for the defendant argued at length that when the plaintiff himself came forward to modify the terms and conditions of the lease deed, hence, the defendant cannot be found fault with, and further, the plaintiff agreeing that he reduced the rent from
Rs.3,77,000/- to Rs.3,70,000/-, cannot take aid of the contents of 14 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
Exhibit A1 and say that he is not entitled to reduce the rent to
Rs.2,50,000/-. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the contents of Exhibit A1 lease deed are clear. In the said lease deed, Clause 19 reads as follows:
“This Agreement shall not be amended, altered
or added to except by means of a
supplementary deed in writing duly signed by
the parties hereto.”
20.However, as putforth by the plaintiff himself, he reduced the agreed rent of Rs.3,77,000/- to Rs.3,70,000/-. The documents produced by the plaintiff himself reveals the said fact. Even the plaintiff, who examined himself as PW1 during the course of cross- examination clearly stated that the lease deed recites that an amount of Rs.3,77,000/- is to be the monthly rent, but, subsequently, he adjusted/agreed for Rs.3,70,000/- per month.
PW1 admitted the genuineness of Exhibit B1. Exhibit B1 contents reveals that when the defendant addressed the said letter to the plaintiff to sign the said letter in pursuance of the agreement between them that the monthly rent including maintenance would be Rs.3,70,000/- instead of Rs.3,77,000/- from the date of lease 15 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
agreement, the plaintiff signed the same and acknowledged. He did not mention that the said term of reduction has to be again reduced into writing in the form of an agreement and should be got registered as contained in Exhibit A1. No reason whatsoever is stated by the plaintiff about the failure to raise his voice contending that the said reduction of rent would become contrary to the terms and conditions of Exhibit A1. Thus, when he himself has agreed for the deviation of the contents of Exhibit A1, he cannot say that the further reduction of rent to Rs.2,50,000/- should be in the form of agreement as contained in Clause 19 of Exhibit A1.
21.PW1 during the course of cross-examination also admitted his signature in Exhibit A2. He further states that the rent is reduced to Rs.2,50,000/- per month as per Exhibit A2. However, he volunteered that Exhibit A2 was issued for audit purpose as temporary arrangement not effecting the registered lease deed. But, he admitted that Exhibit A2 does not contain such a recital. Exhibit
A2 is the letter dated 05.03.2009, which was addressed by the plaintiff himself to the defendant. As the contents of the said letter 16 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
plays crucial role in deciding the issues that are taken up for discussion, the contents are extracted as under.
“This is with respect to the Lease
Agreement entered between us on 13 th April 2008
for the premises situated at plot No.283/A, MLA
Colony Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad the
entire First Floor for running beauty, Slimming,
Fitness & Health Care Center / Institute.
As discussed with you that the monthly
rental including maintenance would be
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand
only) per month instead of Rs.3,70,000/- per
month effective from 1 st April 2009 onwards and
the same would be applicable for further next
two years. Also, as discussed keeping in view
the market situations in future the rent can be
renegotiated from 1 st April 2010 onwards. If a
negotiation could not be reached at that time,
than the rent would be it’s original one which is
Rs.3,70,000/- effective from 1 st April 2010.
I am confident that we can always reach
mutual understanding regarding any issues
related to your business with us.”
22.Therefore, it is the plaintiff himself who has reduced the rent again from Rs.3,70,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. May be the same is as requested by the defendant. But the plaintiff even at that time did not contend or request for entering into a separate agreement to that effect in pursuance of Exhibit A1. Admittedly, one cannot approbate or reprobate. Basing on the situation at that time, the 17 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
plaintiff himself agreed for reduction of rent and as perceived through the entire material brought on record, it is clear that when the relationship between them got strained, the plaintiff now projects that the defendant is at liability to abide by the terms and conditions of Exhibit A1. As rightly putforth by the learned counsel for the defendant, if the plaintiff would have objected or refused to deviate with the terms and conditions of Exhibit A1 and did not come forward to reduce the rent, the defendant would have chosen his own course and either would have accepted to continue the possession on payment of agreed rent of Rs.3,77,000/- per month or if it was not feasible to him, would have vacated the premises.
But, having accepted the request of the defendant, this Court is of the humble view that the plaintiff is estopped from taking an ‘U’ turn and contend to claim the suit amount basing on the contents of
Exhibit A1.
23.The genuineness of Exhibit A2 is not in dispute.
Though, the plaintiff during the course of cross-examination projected that Exhibit A2 was issued for audit purpose, no evidence 18 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
is brought on record in proof of the said fact. The contents of
Exhibit A2 reveals that basing on an understanding between the parties, the reduction of rent was agreed upon and later it was acted. The contents of Exhibit A4-notice dated 16.09.2010 which was issued on behalf of the plaintiff also reveals that the plaintiff agreed for the adjustment of rent to Rs.2,50,000/- per month to tide over the situation. The contents of Exhibit A6-message by the plaintiff also discloses that there was an agreement in respect of reduction of rent. In Exhibit A6, the plaintiff narrated as follows:
“I am forced to terminate the temporary
agreement of the year 2009, that was made
towards rent reduction.”
24.The said statement of the plaintiff itself reveals that there was an agreement in respect of reduction of rent. Exhibit A12 is another crucial document. Exhibit A12 is also letter that was addressed by the plaintiff dated 16.04.2016. In the said letter, the plaintiff himself mentioned as follows:
“1. Present rent will be continued for six months, which is Rs.2,50,000/-.
2. Rent is negotiable any time after six months.” 19 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
25.No doubt, in the said letter it is mentioned that the terms will be effective after the lessor and lessee both sign the agreement. But, one important aspect that has to be noticed is at
Point No.1, the plaintiff used the phrase “continue for six more months”. That means already the said rent was in existence.
Therefore, again taking effect of the said terms after signing the agreement does not arise.
26.The genuineness of those documents whose contents are adverse to the plaintiff cannot be doubted as they were produced by the plaintiff himself. Therefore, this Court holds that
Exhibit A2 letter dated 05.03.2009 is valid and binds the plaintiff.
This Court also holds that as Exhibit A2 is the out come of the understanding between the parties and as the plaintiff did not object the reduction of the rent on the ground that the said reduction has to be taken place in consonance of Exhibit A1 in the manner as required by the said lease deed, hence, the said letter superseded
Exhibit A1.
27.Coming to the aspect of the other correspondence 20 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
between the parties, when the entire material is meticulously perused, this Court perceives that the plaintiff though had accepted to receive rent @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month, was disappointed for not getting the rent of huge amount as per the terms of Exhibit A1, and therefore, was trying to get the rent again enhanced and bring it to its original value i.e., Rs.3,70,000/- or Rs.3,77,000/-. This Court also perceives through the correspondence between the parties as projected through the documents produced, that the plaintiff was also of the apprehension that he would loose the rent even what he was getting, if the defendant vacates the premises by choosing another one. The contents of Exhibit A6 are as follows:
“VLCC representatives have approached me
in the year 2009, requesting for temporary
reduction of rent for their premises bearing
No.8-2-293/82/L/2, situated at Road No.12, MLA
Colony, Banjara Hills. They expressed their
intent to continue the lease for full term of the
registered lease deed – which is for 9 years.
Also they agreed that there would be no further
requests from VLCC, for rebate in future. I
immediately agreed to their request and made
a 40% (approximately) reduction in rent. This
was purely a temporary arrangement to
maintain cordial relationship with you.
Few months ago, another floor in our
building was leased out to another business
and also the deed was registered. When VLCC
protested that it would not be in their interest, I
made a decision in favour of VLCC and
21 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
cancelled the lease deed and took the loss. I
always took decisions in favour of VLCC.
Recently, I had a meeting with Mr.Krishna
(Area Accounts Manager) and Mrs.Babita (Area
Manager) in which they requested further
rebate in rent. I am also in receipt of your
email, stating the same.
It came to my notice that VLCC’s employees/
representatives are in search of new premises,
inspite of my best efforts to retain you at our
location. This is against your commitment to
stay with us for full period of the lease.”
Thus, by the above contents it is clear that the plaintiff had totally ignored Exhibit A1 and started his negotiations, so that, he could retain the presence of the defendant in his premises and get rent.
28.The plaintiff during the course of cross-examination when he examined himself as PW1, stated that he terminated the lease deed under Exhibit A1 through Exhibit A3-notice. He further deposed that he is not aware that after termination of the lease under Exhibit A3, the defendant is a tenant on month to month basis. He contended that his claim is based on Exhibit A1. As rightly putforth by the learned counsel for the defendant, when the plaintiff himself contends that through Exhibit A3-notice dated 05.05.2010, he terminated the lease and even by the said date, 22 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
there were modifications of the rent payable, this Court does not understand how the plaintiff can again claim the monthly rent @
Rs.3,77,000/- per month for the subsequent period i.e., from 01.06.2010. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the issues taken up for discussion are liable to be answered against the plaintiff. Thus, these issues are concluded holding that the lease agreement dated 13.04.2008 does not bind the defendant and the letter dated 05.03.2009 which is marked as Exhibit A2, issued by the plaintiff himself binds him and that the said document superseded Exhibit A1. This Court also holds that the subsequent correspondence to Exhibit A1 has made the contents of Exhibit A1 unenforceable and a nullity.
29. ISSUE NOS: 1, 7, 8 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOS.1 and 2:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount or any part thereon? And, if so, what amount? What is the liability of the defendant?
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim or any part thereof pursuant to the lease agreement dated 13.04.2008?
8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from making the present claim?
23 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as per the revised claim?
2) Whether the defendant contravened the terms of the registered lease deed and denied the quantum of rents?
The defendant disputed the whole claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff clearly narrated that the defendant paid rent from the month of
June 2010 @ Rs.2,35,000/-, and therefore, he got issued further notice
dated 16.09.2010 calling upon the defendant to arrange payment of the
balance. The defendant did not specifically deny the said fact. The defendant did not state on what basis he paid the rent @ Rs.2,35,000/- per month from June 2010 till the date he vacated the premises.
30.The agreed rent as per the discussion that went on supra is
Rs.2,50,000/- per month. The plaintiff himself narrated that the defendant vacated the property with effect from 11.02.2014. The plaintiff while making calculations in the plaint in respect of the amount he is entitled @ Rs.3,70,000/- per month, mentioned that he received rent @ Rs.2,35,000/- only from June 2010 till the date of vacating the premises. From June 2010 till February 2014, the period is 45 months.
The difference of amount to be payable during each month is 24 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
Rs.15,000/- (Rs.2,50,000/- (-) Rs.2,35,000/-). Thus, the difference amount which the plaintiff is entitled to for the said 45 months is
Rs.6,75,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 45 months). However, the plaintiff himself mentioned that he had with him the refundable security deposit of
Rs.22,62,000/-. It is not his version that at the time of vacating the premises he refunded the said amount. Calculating the amount @
Rs.3,70,000/- per month, he adjusted the said amount for the sum payable and projected a claim of Rs.96,17,048/-.
31.By the discussion that went on, it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled for the said amount. Even the difference amount that is payable is only Rs.6,75,000/-. But a sum of Rs.22,62,000/- of the defendant is in the hands of plaintiff. Therefore, this Court holds that the defendant is not at liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent. Thus, the issues taken up for discussion are answered holding that the plaintiff in view of his subsequent understanding with the defendant to receive rent @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month, is estopped from making such claim and that he is not entitled to the decree as prayed for.
25 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
32. ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim subsequent/future interest? And, if so, at what rate, and for what period and on what amount?
As the foregoing issues were answered against the plaintiff holding that he is not entitled to the suit claim, the question of deciding the interest payable does not arise. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.
33. ISSUE NO.9:
To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10 th day of March, 2020.
CHIEF JUDGE
City Civil Courts, Hyderabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant PW1: M.Shyam Kumar @ Shyam Mantri. None.
Documents marked For the Plaintiff:
1) Exhibit A1 is the Copy of Lease Deed Doc.No.3309/2008, dated 13.04.2008.
2) Exhibit A2 is the O/c of Letter addressed to defendant dt.05.03.2009.
3) Exhibit A3 is the O/c of the notice dated 05.05.2010.
4) Exhibit A4 is the O/c of Reminder dated 16.09.2010.
5) Exhibit A5 is the Reply notice in original dated 15.05.2010.
6) Exhibit A6 is the E-mail to defendant dated 22.03.2010.
26 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
7) Exhibit A7 is the E-mail to defendant dated 25.06.2010.
8) Exhibit A8 is the E-mail to defendant dated 07.10.2010.
9) Exhibit A9 is the E-mail to defendant dated 07.10.2010.
10) Exhibit A10 is the E-mail to defendant dated 19.07.2010.
11) Exhibit A11 is the E-mail to defendant dated 23.08.2010.
12) Exhibit A12 is the E-mail to defendant dated 16.04.2010.
13) Exhibit A13 is the E-mail to defendant dated 14.04.2010.
14) Exhibit A14 is the E-mail to defendant dated 22.03.2010.
15) Exhibit A15 is the E-mail to defendant dated 24.11.2010.
16) Exhibit A16 is the E-mail to defendant dated 31.01.2011.
17) Exhibit A17 is the E-mail to defendant dated 07.10.2010.
18) Exhibit A18 is the E-mail to defendant dated 07.10.2010.
19) Exhibit A19 is the E-mail to defendant dated 07.10.2010.
20) Exhibit A20 is E-mail to the defendant from the plaintiff dated 24.09.2010.
21) Exhibit A21 is E-mail to the defendant from the plaintiff dated 25.07.2010.
22) Exhibit A22 is E-mail to the defendant from the plaintiff dated 23.08.2010.
23) Exhibit A23 is E-mail to the defendant from the plaintiff dated 07.10.2010 with invoices from Jan, 2010 to May, 2010.
24) Exhibit A24 is E-mail to the defendant from the plaintiff.
25) Exhibit A25 is E-mail to the defendant from the plaintiff along with the invoices from April, 2010 to July, 2010 dated 07.10.2018.
26) Exhibit A26 is E-mail to the defendant from the plaintiff along with the invoices from Aug, 2010 to Oct., 2010 dated 07.10.2010.
27) Exhibit A27 is the Letter of plaintiff to defendants at Hyderabad
dated 06.05.2010.
28) Exhibit A28 is the RPAD Receipt No.1679.
29) Exhibit A29 is the Letter of plaintiff to defendant at Hyderabad dated 07.09.2010.
30) Exhibit A30 is the RPAD Receipt No.2946.
31) Exhibit A31 is the Letter of plaintiff to defendants at Hyderabad
dated 12.10.2010.
32) Exhibit A32 is the RPAD Receipt No.3236.
33) Exhibit A33 is the RPAD Receipt No.3237.
27 of 27 O.S.No.51 of 2011
Dt:10.03.2020
34) Exhibit A34 is the Letter of plaintiff to defendant at Hyderabad dated 12.11.2010
35) Exhibit A35 is the Postal Acknowledgment card of defendant at
Delhi.
36) Exhibit A36 is the E-mail first dated 25.11.2010.
37) Exhibit A37 is the Letter of plaintiff to defendant at Hyderabad dated 01.11.2011.
38) Exhibit A38 is the RPAD Receipt No.4779.
39) Exhibit A39 is the E-mail first dated 31.01.2011.
40) Exhibit A40 is the E-mail first dated 07.10.2010.
For the Defendant:
1) Exhibit B1 is the copy of letter dated 29.08.2008.
2) Exhibit B2 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.06.2009.
3) Exhibit B3 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.07.2009.
4) Exhibit B4 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.08.2009.
5) Exhibit B5 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.09.2009.
6) Exhibit B6 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.10.2009.
7) Exhibit B7 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.11.2009.
8) Exhibit B8 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.12.2009.
9) Exhibit B9 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.01.2010.
10) Exhibit B10 is the copy of Invoice dated 01.02.2010.
CHIEF JUDGE
City Civil Courts, Hyderabad