( 1 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Defendant has pressed preliminary Objection (a) recorded in the Written Statement to the effect that this court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, since the principal office of the Defendant is not located in Delhi and since the property in respect of which storage charges have been claimed is situated in Mathura. Arguments were addressed in detail by learned Counsel for the parties. By this order, I propose to decide this question as a Preliminary Issue.

( 2 ) THE prayer in the Plaint is for the passing of a Decree for Rs. 52,25,210. 42 together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum and costs. The Defendant had sold its entire unit at Mathura to the Plaintiff company for rs. 30,00,000/- by registered Sale Deed dated 25. 4. 1994 executed and registered at delhi. The Plaint states that at that time difficulties in handing over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property were encountered. Possession of the unit was eventually handed over by the Defendant on 11. 5. 1994 but even then it failed to remove its material from the suit premises. The Plaintiff has asserted that this material is occupying 10,000 square feet of land, and it has, therefore, been deprived of the use of this space. The Plaintiff intimated the Defendant that it would claim storage charges at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square feet with effect from 11. 5. 1994. In august, 1995, this claim for storage charges was increased to Rs. 15/- per square feet. It is necessary to record that the Plaint is replete with the use of words "storage charges". In paragraph 10 of the Plaint, it has been averred that" the Defendant did not take steps for removing the material as a result of which the Defendant has become liable to pay storage charges from 11. 5. 1994 till the filing of the Suit which works out to Rs. 39,40,000/ -. Since the payment of storage charges was not made despite repeated requests and demands, therefore, the Defendant has also become liable to pay interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum with quarterly rests as on account of the illegal withhodling of the storage charges. . . . . . . . . ".

( 3 ) PARAGRAPHS 14 and 15 of the plaint read as under:

"14. That cause of action arose at Delhi when the MOU dated 3. 1. 1994 was entered into between the parties; again arose when the sale deed dated 25. 3. 94 was entered into at Delhi; again arose on various dates when despite having delivered possession of the unit to the plaintiff on 11. 5. 94 the defendant failed to remove the material and the cause of action is continuing as the defendant has failed to remove the material. 15. That the cause of action arose at Delhi, payment of storage charges were to be made at Delhi and therefore this Court has the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon this suit. "

( 4 ) A counter claim has been raised by the Defendant in the sum of Rs. 24,11,405. 70 together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum, on which appropriate Court-fee has been paid.

( 5 ) THE contention of Mr. Bhushan, learned Counsel for the Defendant, is that the claim of the Plaintiff falls squarely under Section 16 (e) of the C. P. C. and hence the Suit ought to have been filed in Mathura, since the property in question lies in its local limits. Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, however, relies on Section 20 of the C. P. C. on the grounds that the Defendant actually and voluntarily carries on business and/or personal works for gain in Delhi; and secondly, because the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen in Delhi. Mr. Malhotra has predicated his arguments on Clause (xi) of the Sale Deed dated 25. 3. 1994 which reads thus :

" (XI) All other assets including raw material, work-in-progress, finished goods, consumable stores, spares, tools and tackles lying inside the factory premise; shall remain the property of the Seller and shall b