Case Details

M/S A K International Vs M/S Grovalue Securities Pvt Ltd

Case Details

casenoCase TypeCS (COMM.)
casenoFiling Number18380/2019
casenoRegistration Number703/2019
caseno Filing Date28-11-2019
hearingRegistration Date29-11-2019
hearingFirst Hearing Date29th November 2019
dateDecision Date21st January 2021
casestatusCase StatusCase Disposed
courtCourt Number and Judge762-District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01;
natureNature of DisposalUncontested--Decreed;

Petitioners & Respondents

contactsPetitioner

M/S A K International, ;

contactsPetitioner Advocate

Pramod Saigal;

contacts Respondent Name

M/S Grovalue Securities Pvt Ltd;

Order Details

orderdate Order Date29-11-2019 documents

CS (COMM.) No.703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 29.11.2019 Fresh suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered. Present  : Sh. Pramod Sehgal, Counsel for plaintiff. Heard. Record perused. Summons of   the suit  and notice of  application U/O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC be issued to defendant on filing of PF & RC and also through courier duly approved by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, for 19.12.2019. Steps be taken within one week.           (R.L. Meena)         ADJ­02 & Waqf Tribunal       NDD/PHC/ND/29.11.2019

orderdate Order Date23-03-2020 documents

23.03.2020 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 23.03.2020 In view of advisory issued by High Court of Delhi with respect to COVID-19 vide No.79/RG/DHC/2020, dated 16.03.2020, matter is adjourned for further proceedings for 22.05.2020. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 23.03.2020

orderdate Order Date21-09-2020 documents

21.09.2020 43 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 21.09.2020 Present : Sh. Pramod Saigal along with Ms. Shreya Saigal, Ld. counsels for the plaintiff through video conferencing. None present for defendant either through physical hearing or video conferencing. As per order dated 19.12.2019, defendant has already been served. Neither defendant appeared before the court nor filed any written statement. Defendant is proceeded exparte. As requested by ld. counsel, put up for exparte evidence by way of affidavits of witnesses. Affidavits be filed atleast one week prior to the next date. To come up for 20.10.2020. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 21.09.2020 Certified that the hearing through video conferencing was smooth and audible to the counsel for the plaintiff as well as the court. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 21.09.2020 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

orderdate Order Date20-10-2020 documents

Through Video Conferencing 39 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs.M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 20.10.2020 Present : Sh. Pramod Sehgal, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff with PW1 Sh. Anil Verma. Defendant is already exparte. PW1 Sh. Anil Verma who is present through vide conferencing with his advocate is examined. The copy of his statement be sent to the plaintiff at the email address mentioned in case information format for his signatures. Witness is directed to go through the statement and sent it back to the Reader of the Court after signing it by way of email today itself. The originally signed statement be also filed in the court within three days and both be placed on record. It is submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff the plaintiff's evidence may be closed. PE closed accordingly. Case be fixed for final arguments. Put up for Final arguments on 05.11.2020. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 20.10.2020 Certified that the hearing through video conferencing was smooth and audible to the counsel for the petitioner as well as the court. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 20.10.2020 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

orderdate Order Date05-11-2020 documents

05.11.2020 26 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 05.11.2020 Present : Sh.Pramod Singh, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff through video conferencing. None for the defendant. Defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.09.2020. Final arguments heard. Written arguments has been filed by plaintiff. Put up for judgment on 20.11.2020. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 05.11.2020 Certified that the hearing through video conferencing was smooth and audible to the counsel as well as the court. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 05.11.2020 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

orderdate Order Date20-11-2020 documents

20.11.2020 27 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 20.11.2020 Present : None. Clarifications required. Put up for clarifications on 02.12.2020. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 20.11.2020 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

orderdate Order Date02-12-2020 documents

02.12.2020 Through Video Conferencing CS (COMM) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 02.12.2020 Present : None. Matter is fixed for clarifications today. It appears that there is some connectivity issue and ld. Counsel is not able to respond. An application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC along with proposed amended plaint was filed by plaintiff on 24.11.2020. Defendant has already been proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.09.2020. It may be noted that in case defendant failed to participate in proceedings by next date of hearing, matter will be taken up on merits in accordance with law. Put up for consideration of application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 14.12.2020. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 02.12.2020 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

orderdate Order Date14-12-2020 documents

14.12.2020 Through Video Conferencing 36 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 14.12.2020 Present : Sh. Pramod Sehgal and Ms. Shreya Sehgal, Ld. counsels for the plaintiff. Defendant is already exparte. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff requested permission to withdraw his application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint (filed on 24.11.2020). Ld. Counsel for plaintiff requested permission to advance fresh final arguments/additional arguments. To come up for 18.12.2020. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 14.12.2020 Certified that the hearing through video conferencing was smooth and audible to the counsels as well as the court. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 14.12.2020 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

orderdate Order Date18-12-2020 documents

18.12.2020 Through Video Conferencing 32 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 18.12.2020 Present : Sh. Pramod Saigal and Ms. Shreya Saigal, Ld. counsels for the plaintiff. Defendant is already exparte. As requested, put up for final arguments on 07.01.2021. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 18.12.2020 Certified that the hearing through video conferencing was smooth and audible to the counsel as well as the court. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 18.12.2020 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

orderdate Order Date07-01-2021 documents

21 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 07.01.2021 Present : Sh. Pramod Sehgal and Ms. Shreya Sehgal, Ld. counsels for the plaintiff through video- conferencing None for the defendant. Defendant is already ex-parte. Final arguments heard. Written submissions are already on record. Put up for judgment on 21.01.2021. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 07.01.2021 Certified that the hearing through video conferencing was smooth and audible to the counsel as well as the court. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 07.01.2021 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].

Final Order Judgement

orderdateOrder Date21-01-2021 documents
Through Video Conferencing 36 CS (COMM.) 703/19 M/S A K INTERNATIONAL Vs. M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD 21.01.2021 Present : Sh. Pramod Saigal and Ms. Shreya Saigal, Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff. Defendant is already ex-parte vide order dated 21.09.2020. Vide my separate judgment of even date, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.10,46,800/- (Rupees ten lakhs, forty-six thousand and eight hundred only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the amount. Interest be calculated accordingly on the said amount only. Cost is awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as per rules. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 21.01.2021 Certified that the hearing through video conferencing was smooth and audible to the counsel as well as the court. SANJEEV JAIN District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 21.01.2021 Note: In case any document or any judgment is to be sent, the same may be sent on the e-mail id : [email protected].
orderdateOrder Date21-01-2021 documents
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV JAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)­01,  NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,  NEW DELHI Presiding Officer: Sh. Sanjeev Jain, District Judge  (Commercial Courts)­01 CS (COMM) 703/2019 In the matter of: M/S A.K. INTERNATIONAL A registered partnership firm,  48, NRI Complex, Greater Kailash­4, Mandakini Plotted Housing Scheme, New Delhi­110019 Through its Partnership Mr. Anil Verma S/o Sh. K.L. Verma …. Plaintiff Vs.  M/S GROVALUE SECURITIES PVT LTD A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 Having its registered office at 806, 8th Floor of Challa Mall, No.11, Sir Thyagarayar Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600017  Corporate Office 03, Enterprise Centre,  Off. Nehru Road, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai­400099 Also at: Flat No.213, Naurag House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi­110001 ….Defendant.  Date of institution of Suit : 29.11.2019 Arguments advanced on  : 07.01.2021 Date of pronouncement of the judgment  :   21.01.2021 Appearance :   Sh. Pramod Saigal, Advocate for plaintiff.          None for defendant. (Defendant is ex­parte)  Judgment 1. Facts of the case: 1.1 As disclosed in the plaint, plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and defendant is a private limited company. The present suit has been filed in respect of commercial property bearing Flat no. 213, measuring super area approximately 528 sq. ft. situated on 2nd Floor of Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (herein after referred to as 'Suit Property'). 1.2 Plaintiff and defendant entered into a registered Lease Agreement dated 11.05.2019 in respect of the suit property for a fixed period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- subject to escalation of rent as per clause 2 of the Lease Agreement. 1.3 As per clause 6 of the Lease Agreement, defendant agreed that there shall be a lock-in-period of 24 months w.e.f 20.05.2019 till 19.05.2021, during which if the defendant intends to surrender the premises of suit property to the plaintiff then defendant shall be liable to pay the rent for the remaining unexpired lock-in-period along with maintenance (charges @Rs.5/ per month) with other charges and applicable taxes. Plaintiff also had a right to terminate the Lease Agreement during the lock-in-period on account of non-payment of rent by the defendant. 1.4 Under clause 19 of the Lease Agreement, defendant could terminate the Lease Agreement after the expiry of lock-in-period after giving three months notice. As per clause 7 of the Lease Agreement rent was payable in advance by the fifth (5 th) day of every month. It was also agreed that in case defendant fails to pay rent for any two months then the plaintiff may re-enter the leased premises and determine the Lease Agreement without prejudice to his right to recover the rent and compensation for the period the defendant had been in possession of the suit property and remaining lock- in-period. 1.5 Defendant used the suit property for its office and paid proportionate rent for the month of May, 2019 and the rent of Rs.50,000/- from June, 2019 to September 2019. The rent was paid after deducting tax at source @ 10% i.e. defendant was paying Rs. 45,000/- per month after deducting TDS of Rs.5,000/- per month till September 2019. Defendant also paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards interest free security deposit. 1.6 Defendant informed the plaintiff vide e-mail dated 04.10.2019 at 10.20 AM that they would like to vacate the suit property and requested the plaintiff to settle pending accounts. Plaintiff replied that all the dues will be settled in terms of the Lease Agreement. Defendant vide emails dated 04.10.2019 and 05.10.2019 reiterated their intentions of vacating the suit property and requested the plaintiff; to adjust the security deposit maintained with the plaintiff; to return the balance to the defendant; and to relieve them from the premises at the earliest. 1.7 Plaintiff, in reply to the email of the defendant dated 05.10.2019, sent a letter dated 16.10.2019 to the defendant (through speed post, duly received by the defendant) and informed the defendant that there is a 24 months lock-in-period in clause 6 of the Lease Agreement before which premature termination of lease is not permissible and if defendant wanted premature termination of the lease then the defendant is liable to pay the rent, electricity minimum charges and the maintenance bill for the remaining lock-in-period. The Lease Agreement does not envisage any eventuality conferring a right or an option to the defendant to terminate the lease de hors the lock-in-period clause. 1.8 Plaintiff sent a notice dated 19.10.2019 to the defendant, duly received by the defendant, whereby plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay unpaid rent amount, electricity dues and maintenance charges for the period of defendant's occupation in leased property. Plaintiff also informed the defendant that the security deposit shall be refunded once the said unpaid amount is received by the plaintiff. 1.9 Defendant on 25.10.2019 telephonically informed the plaintiff that they would not handover the possession of the premises till the security amount is refunded. Defendant vide its reply dated 25.10.2019 sent via email again requested the plaintiff to return the security deposit of Rs,1,50,000/- after deducting the rent for the month of October, 2019. Defendant also raised issues of dampness and repairs etc. and told that the possession of the suit property will be handed over to the plaintiff on 01.11.2019. 1.10. Plaintiff vide its reply dated 30.10.2019 to the defendant's letter dated 25.10.2019 informed the defendant that they are bound to abide by and pay the amounts in terms of Lease Agreement. Defendant vide letter dated 31.10.2019 gave vague and evasive explanation to their termination of Lease Agreement and about not handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Defendant also informed the plaintiff that they would withdraw the termination notice. 1.11 Plaintiff, vide its email dated 01.11.2019, requested the defendant to honor its commitment and to withdraw the termination notice by 05.11.2019 besides paying the over due rents and outstanding bills. However, defendant neither withdrew the termination notice dated 04.10.2019 nor paid the arrears of rent, electricity and maintenance charges. 1.12. Despite repeated requests and reminders defendant stopped paying rent from October 2019 and remained in the use of the suit property without paying the rent and charges. 1.13 The defendant had broken the express condition of the Lease Agreement. The plaintiff has never waived the forfeiture of the Lease Agreement. Tenancy of the defendant was terminated by way of forfeiture under section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on and from 06.11.2019 and as per Clause 7 of the Lease Agreement since the defendant failed to pay the rent for the month of November by 05.11.2019. 2. Service of summons to the defendant: 2.1 Defendant was served with summons for the suit and notice of the application under order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') on 05.12.2019 but defendant failed to appear before the Court, therefore, was proceeded ex­parte vide order dated 21.09.2020. 2.2 Defendant after the service of summons handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on 07.02.2020. Plaintiff accepted the possession of the suit property and suit property has been lying vacant since 07.02.2020.  3. Plaintiff's evidence: 3.1 In   the   plaintiff's   evidence,   Sh.   Anil   Verma,   partner   of   the   plaintiff   was examined   as  PW1  who   filed   his   affidavit   Ex.PW1/A.    His   evidence  by  way  of affidavit was tendered before the Court and he proved the following documents :­  S.NO Document Exhibit 1 Photocopy of Partnership Deed dated 27.12.1979 Mark­ X1 2 Photocopy  of  Registration  Certificate No. 572/80 dated 06.03.1980 Mark­ X2 3 Photocopy   of   flat   buyers   agreement dated 15.07.2003 Mark­ X3 4 Site Plan of the suit premises. Ex. PW1/A 5 Original   Lease   Agreement   dated 11.05.2019 Ex. PW1/B 6 Emails exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant on 04.10.2019 and 05.10.2019 and 14.10.2019. Ex. PW1/C 7 Notice   dated   16.10.2019   along   with postal receipts and tracking report. Ex.PW1/D (Colly) 8 Notice dated 19.10.2019 Ex. PW1/E 9 Email dated 25.10.2019 Ex. PW1/F 10 Letter Dated 25.10.2019 Ex. PW1/G 11 Email dated 30.10.2019 Ex. PW1/H 12 Defendant's email dated 31.10.2019 to the   plaintiff   along   with   defendant's letter dated 31.10.2019 to the plaintiff. Ex.   PW1/I (Colly) 13 Plaintiff's email dated 1.11.2019 to the defendant Ex. PW1/J  14 Tracking  reports   from  the  website  of postal authorities. Ex.   PW1/K (Colly) 15 Possession letter  Ex. PW1/L 16 Certificate  u/s  65­B of  Evidence  Act, 1878 Ex. PW1/M PW1 was discharged. Plaintiff's evidence was closed and the case was listed for final arguments.  4. Arguments advance by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff: 4.1  It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that as per the agreed terms of Lease Agreement the defendant is liable to pay for the unexpired lock­in­period in addition   to   three  months  notice  period   rent   alongwith   the  other   charges   such  as maintenance charges, electricity charges alongwith service tax. 4.2 Tenant  can  not   leave   the   rented  property  or   terminate   the  agreement   for  a specified period as he is bound by the commitment in terms of the lock­in­period clause in the Lease Agreement. Tenant was to comply with the terms of the lease which did not envisage any eventuality conferring a right or an option for the tenant to terminate the lease during the lock­in­period. 4.3  Ld.   Counsel   for   the   plaintiff   argued   that   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   for   the following:  (i)  Arrears of rent and taxes for the month of October, 2019 and November, 2019 to the tune of : Rs.1,00,000.00 (ii)  Damages / Mesne profit for unauthorized occupation of the suit premises till handing over of the possession @ Rs. 50,000/­ per month alongwith GST i.e. from 20.12.2019 to 07.02.2020 to the tune of : Rs.80,000.00 (iii)  Damages / rent in respect of the suit premises for the expired lock­in­ period as per clause 6 and 7 of the registered Lease Agreement along with GST as under:  (a)  Rs.   50,000/­   per   month   from   08.02.2020   to   19.05.2020   i.e. Rs.1,63,000.00 (b)  Rs.   52,500/­   per   month   from   20.05.2000   to   19.05.2021   i.e.  Rs. 6,30,000.00 (iv)  Unpaid building maintenance charges from October 2019 till 07.02.2020 to the tune of Rs.27,073.00 (v)  Building maintenance charges for the lock­in­period w.e.f February 2020 to 19.05.2021 @ Rs.5.00/­ per sq. feet for 528 SFT Rs.5x528 SFT = Rs. 2460/­ per month, to the tune of Rs. 39,600.00 (vi) Unpaid electricity charges upto 07.02.2020, to the tune of Rs. 7,127/­ (vii)  Pendente­lite and future interest @ 24% per annum. (viii)  Cost of litigation in the present suit. 5. I have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the record.   6. Detailed   discussion:  Testimony   of   PW1  remained   unchallanged.   PW1 has proved   material   contents   of   the   plaint   and   the   material   documents   i.e.   Lease Agreement and correspondence between the parties. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. 6.1 As per unrebutted evidence of PW1, defendant remained in occupation of the suit property from 19.05.2019 till 07.02.2020 and according to the Lease Agreement Ex.  PW1/B the  lock­in­period was  to  expire  on 19.05.2021.  The  intention of   the parties  was  to  execute   the Lease Agreement   for  definite   (fix)  period  i.e.   lock­in­ period. 6.2 Clause   6   provides   for   lock­in­period   and   the   defendant   could   not   have terminated the Lease Agreement before the expiry of the lock­in­period. Defendant was liable to pay the rent for the lock­in­period as the lock­in­period was absolute and there was no option to terminate the lease before lock­in­period by the defendant or the plaintiff except that the plaintiff could terminate the lease for non­payment of rent by the defendant.  6.3 The chapter VI of the Contract Act provides legal proposition for breach of the contract. As per section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 the party who suffers by the breach of contract in entitled to receive from the defaulting party, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him by such breach, which naturally arose in usual course of things from such breach, or which the two parties knew when they make the contract to be likely the result of the breach of contract. 6.4 Section   64   of   the   Contract   Act   entitles   a   party   to   claim   reasonable compensation from the party who has broken the contract which compensation can be determined stipulated at the time of entering into the contract itself. This section thus provides for pre­estimate of damage or loss which a party is likely to suffer if the other party breaks the contract entered between the parties. 6.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ONGC Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2639 discussed provision of Section 73 and 74 of Indian Contract Act. The relevant portions of the same are reproduced below: “Under Section 73, when a contract  has been broken,  the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss caused by him which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. This section is to be read with Section 74, which deals with penalty stipulated in the contract, inter alia [relevant for the present case] provides   that  when  a   contract  has  been  broken,   if   a   sum  is  named   in   the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, the party complaining of breach is entitled, whether or not actual loss is proved to have been caused, thereby   to   receive   from  the   party   who   has   broken   the   contract   reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so name. Section 74 emphasizes that in case of breach of contract, the party complaining of the breach is entitled to receive reasonable compensation whether or not actual loss is proved to have been   caused   by   such   breach.     Therefore,   the   emphasis   is   on   reasonable compensation. If the compensation named in the contract is by way of penalty, consideration would be different and the party is only entitled to reasonable compensation for the loss suffered. But if the compensation named is genuine pre­estimate of loss which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it, there is no question of proving such loss or such party is not required to lead evidence to prove actual loss suffered by him. Burden is on the other party to lead evidence for providing that no loss is likely to occur by such breach...” 6.6  In the present case, defendant remained in occupation of the suit property from 19.05.2019 to 07.02.2020.   As per Lease Agreement Ex. PW1/B, the lock­in­period was to end on 19.05.2021. The interest of the owner of the premises can be seen as; that   no   damage   caused   to   the   premises;   a   reasonable   continuity   of   the   lease   is secured; and timely payment of the rent is also ensured. On the other hand the interest of the other party taking premises on lease can be counted as; being no ambiguity in the monthly rent; leased premises is enjoyed seamlessly; and a reasonable continuity of the lease over a period of time. The owner of the property intends to avoid the hassle of finding tenant now and then and the taker of the property does not want to get evicted frequently. The lock­in­period, therefore, works in the interest of both the parties. 6.7 The  defendant   is   liable   to   pay   for   the  unexpired   lock­in­period   plus   three months notice period rent  along with other charges such as maintenance charges, electricity charges along with GST, as per the agreed terms of the Lease Agreement. 6.8  The plaintiff  has undertaken that  once the plaintiff  gets a  tenant within the lock­in­period, he shall not claim any money qua the remaining lock­in­period after the   premises   are   let   out.   The   demised   premises   have   remained   vacant   which   is directly attributable to the conduct of the defendant due to pre­term termination of the Lease   Agreement   by   the   defendant.   The   loss   of   the   plaintiff   is   directly   and exclusively attributable to the act of vacancy of the premises by the defendant prior to the expiry of the lock­in­period. The defendant is liable for this loss as the same is emerging form the breach of the contract. Plaintiff has also put advertisements for renting out the suit property in daily newspaper Hindustan Times dated 15.08.2020 and 13.09.2020 but has not been able to find a tenant for the suit property. 6.9 The defendant was in unauthorized use and occupation of  the suit  property from 06.11.2019 till 07.02.2020. Hence, defendant is liable to pay damages / mesne profits  @ Rs.50,000/­  per  plus  applicable   taxes  and  deductions,   till   the   time   the defendant delivered the possession of the suit property i.e. 07.02.2020. Defendant is, therefore, liable to pay Rs.50,000/­ per month w.e.f. 20.12.2019 to 07.02.2020 i.e. one month and eighteen days which comes upto an amount of Rs.80,000/­ towards arrears of rent  /  unauthorized use and occupation charges of  the suit  property till 07.02.2020 after deducting applicable taxes. 6.10. The defendant   is  also   liable   to  pay   towards   the   lock­in­period as   stated   in clause 17 of the Lease Agreement i.e. Rs.50,000/­ per month w.e.f. 08.02.2020 to 19.05.2020 and Rs. 52,000/­ per month from 20.05.2020 to 19.05.2021 as damages besides the electricity minimum charges and building maintenance charges till the expiry of the lock­in­period i.e. 19.05.2021. 6.11 Plaintiff has claimed default interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. 6.12 Order VII rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was brought in by way of amendment   in   respect   of   the   requirements   of   pleadings   where   interest   has   been claimed by the plaintiff but the perusal of the plaint reveals that no case has been set up by the plaintiff in accordance with order VII rule 2A of CPC, however, plaintiff has claimed default interest on the basis of agreement between the parties. 6.13 Under section 34 of CPC it is provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest  may  exceed  6% per   annum but   shall   not   exceed   the   contractual   rate  of interest  or  where  there  in no contractual  rate,   the rate at  which money is   lent  or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to the commercial transactions. 6.14 Keeping in view the above discussion, in my opinion, plaintiff has not justified for claim of default interest @ 24% per annum. It has been established that it has been commercial transaction, so in my opinion, keeping in view the prevalent rate of interest in nationalized banks in such transactions, interest of justice will be served if plaintiff is allowed pendant­lite and future interest @6% per annum. 6.15 Plaintiff has also claimed the cost of the suit, keeping in view section 35 and 35A of CPC, it has been established that defendant failed to pay the amount despite service of notice and even failed to appear before the court.  Therefore, defendant himself   is  responsible for   the cost  of   the  litigation to  the extent of  court  fee and lawyers fee etc. as per rules. In my view plaintiff is accordingly entitled for the cost of litigation against the defendant. 7. Conclusion:  7.1  Keeping in view the above discussion, plaintiff has proved its case for a decree against the defendant for following reliefs:  (i)  Arrears of rent and taxes for the month of October, 2019 and November, 2019 to the tune of Rs.1,00,000.00; (ii)  Damages / Mesne profit for unauthorized occupation of the suit premises till handing over of the possession @ Rs. 50,000/­ per month alongwith GST i.e. from 20.12.2019 to 07.02.2020 to the tune of Rs.80,000.00; (iii)  Damages / rent in respect of the suit premises for the unexpired lock­in­ period as per clause 6 and 7 of the registered Lease Agreement along with GST as under:  (a)  Rs.   50,000/­   per   month   from   08.02.2020   to   19.05.2020   i.e. Rs.1,63,000.00; (b)  Rs.   52,500/­   per   month   from   20.05.2000   to   19.05.2021   i.e.  Rs. 6,30,000.00; (iv)  Unpaid building maintenance charges from October 2019 till 07.02.2020 to the tune of Rs.27,073.00; (v)  Building maintenance charges for the lock­in­period w.e.f February 2020 to 19.05.2021 @ Rs.5.00/­ per sq. feet for 528 SFT Rs.5x528 SFT = Rs. 2460/­ per month, to the tune of Rs. 39,600.00; (vi) Unpaid electricity charges upto 07.02.2020, to the tune of Rs. 7,127/­; The total amount of the above reliefs sums upto Rs.10,46,800/­. 8. Relief:    Suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.10,46,800/­ (Rupees ten lakhs, fourty­six thousand and eight hundred only) along with   interest   @   6%   per   annum   from   the   date   of   institution   of   the   suit   till   the realization of the amount. Interest be calculated accordingly on the said amount only. Cost is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as per rules.  9. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.  10. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.     Pronounced in the open Court          (Sanjeev Jain) on this 21st of January, 2021   District Judge  (Commercial Courts)­01      New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,     New Delhi The order contains 16 pages all checked and signed by me. 

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case M/S A K International vs M/S Grovalue Securities Pvt Ltd is M/S A K International.

The Respondent in case M/S A K International vs M/S Grovalue Securities Pvt Ltd is M/S Grovalue Securities Pvt Ltd.

The case against M/S Grovalue Securities Pvt Ltdwas filed on 28-11-2019 by M/S A K International.

The status of case M/S A K International against M/S Grovalue Securities Pvt Ltd is Case Disposed.