IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendants to fulfill their obligations under the agreement and pay the agreed amount with interest to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendants praying for a decree for an amount of Rs. 30,68,164/-along with interest.

2. By a decree passed by the Hon’ble Court (previously High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal) on September 2, 1889 in Suit No. 413 of 1888, the Committee of the Armenian Church was appointed for the purpose of management of the property of the Armenian Church at Kolkata and Chinsurah, which included the said premises. Accordingly, necessary scheme was also framed pursuant to and in terms of the said decree dated September 2, 1889 for management of the properties and affairs of the Armenian Church.

3. On March, 2014, the defendants approached the plaintiff at its former branch office and represented that the Armenian Church was the sole and absolute owner of premises No. 46, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 and the premises comprises of a two storied building and an outhouse.

4. By virtue of lease executed on February 6, 1985, the Official Trustees of West Bengal as lessor had let out the said premises in favour of Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh, since deceased and the defendants herein, who are the daughters and sons of the said Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh. The lease was for a tenure of ten (10) years and had commenced from October 4, 1983. Under the said lease, the lessor had the right to sublet portions of the said premises on the condition that the lessees would keep a portion of the said premises under their occupation.

5. The said lease expired with the efflux of time on October 3, 1993. After such expiry, by a letter dated 14th February, 1994, the Official Trustees of West Bengal granted monthly tenancy in favour of Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh, since deceased and the defendants herein with effect from October 4, 1993 under the same and similar terms and conditions of the said lease. Subsequently, Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh died intestate leaving behind the defendants as her legal heirs, due to the said circumstances the defendant were entitled to and were competent to create a sub-tenancy in portion of the said premises.

6. On the basis of the representations, the defendants approached the plaintiff with the offer to induct the plaintiff in a portion of the ground floor of the said premises, leaving aside a room comprising of an area of about 125 sq. ft. on the South-East portion of the ground floor of the said premises for the defendants and the area under the physical occupation of Neo Bacto Chemical Laboratories (P) Ltd. against a total consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-advance rent which was to be paid by the plaintiff in a phased manner.

7. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants for assignment and/or creating sub-tenancy in respect of a part and portion of the ground floor of premises No. 46, Park Street, Kolkata700016. Such agreement was contained in a letter dated March 18, 2014 which was counter signed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for themselves and the defendant no. 2 being constituted attorney of the defendant nos. 3 and 4.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement and on the basis of the representations and instructions of the defendants, the plaintiff paid an advance sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-to the defendants as part consideration through manager’s cheque dated March 18, 2014 in favour of defendant no.1 and such manager’s cheque had been encashed and appropriated by the defendants.

9. The aforesaid cheque was drawn in favour of the defendant no. 1 since it was represented to the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 was duly authorised by all the other defendants to receive the said amount on behalf of all the defendants.

10. It was agreed between the parties that the balance sum of amount which is of Rs. 30,00,000/-would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants after the possession of the demised portion was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants.

11. As the defendants failed and neglected to perform their obligations arising out of the said agreement, under s