JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Plaintiffs have filed the present summary suit for reliefs as prayed for. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had taken premises on leave and license from the defendant. One of the terms was that the plaintiffs would deposit and keep deposited a sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs as security. This amount was to be refunded on the expiry or sooner determination of the license after deducting therefrom all the amounts due and payable by the licensee to the licensor and on the licensee handing over to the licensor quite, vacant and peaceful possession of the licensed premises. If the licensor failed to refund the security deposit on the expiry or soon after determination of the license in that event the licensor was liable to pay to the licensee interest on the said amount at the rate of 30% per annum from the date of expiry or soon after determination thereof. The plaintiffs have pleaded and relied on various documents in support of their case. Letter dated 20th November, 1995 has been relied upon to prove the payment of the sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs. That letter shows that drafts in an amount of Rs. 39,06,600/- were forwarded by that letter and also a sum of Rs. 8,90,400/- has already been paid and the difference of the amount is being paid by the said drafts. The agreement has come to an end by efflux of time. The plaintiffs have handed over possession. It is, however, the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have failed to return the security deposit of Rs. 45.00 lakhs which they are entitled to receive along with interest thereon at 30% per annum. Reliance is placed on correspondence, including letter dated January 7, 1998. On behalf of the defendant her son addressed a letter in reply to the plaintiffs earlier letter to terminate the agreement before the due date that the security deposit of Rs. 45.00 lakhs would be refunded in the month of September, 1998. By letter of October 6, 1998 defendant informed the plaintiffs that the defendant would be in a position to pay the lease deposit which was refundable in the manner provided and by one of the options set out in the letter. By letter of December 23, 1998 the defendant informed the plaintiffs that she would pay the sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs in the manner set out thereunder. It was also intimated that the plaintiff should pay all the outstandings to the society and other charges payable upto 30th September, 1998. Inspite of that the security deposit has not been paid back.

2. Hence the summary suit. On summons being served defendant has put in appearance. Thereupon the plaintiffs have taken out summons for judgment to which the defendant has filed reply. Affidavit of Anil Malani, son of the defendant has also being filed in support. Various contentions have been raised therein. They may be briefly summarized considering the arguments advanced before this Court. They are as under:--

(1) The suit as filed is not maintainable as a summary suit as there are interpolations in the produced agreement. The original document which is the basis for maintaining the suit is not available and as the question of interest is not admitted, considering the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, the suit cannot be maintained as a summary suit and the defendants would be entitled to unconditional leave to defend; (2) The amount claimed is not a liquidated amount as various amounts which were due and payable by the plaintiffs under the agreement have not been paid. It is set out that the defendants for the period the premises were occupied by the plaintiffs, had to pay and had paid an amount of Rs. 1,25,299/- which they are entitled to claim along with interest thereon at the rate of 21%; (3) It is also contended that the sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs was not advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant. On the contrary it would be seen that an amount of Rs. 4,36,800/- had been advanced by the plaintiffs to AIMS Exim Trading Services Private Ltd. and not to the defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document