Back
High Court Of Delhi
NINA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LIMITED - Respondent
Suit 3016 of 1989
Decided On : 03/01/1999
The court found that the plaintiff, S.I.S., failed to prove a concluded contract for renewal of the lease and dismissed the claim for specific performance. The court also awarded damages for use and occupation to the owner, K. Ramamoorthy, for the period from 1989 to 1999.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, S.I.S., and the defendant, K. Ramamoorthy, were involved in a dispute over the renewal of a lease for a commercial property. S.I.S. claimed that there was a concluded contract for renewal of the lease, while K. Ramamoorthy denied this. S.I.S. filed a suit for specific performance, seeking an order from the court to compel K. Ramamoorthy to execute a new lease. K. Ramamoorthy filed a counterclaim, seeking possession of the property and damages for use and occupation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that S.I.S. had not proved that there was a concluded contract for renewal of the lease. The court noted that the parties had engaged in negotiations, but that these negotiations had not resulted in a binding agreement. The court also found that S.I.S. had not obtained the necessary authorization from its board of directors to enter into a new lease. The court dismissed S.I.S.'s claim for specific performance.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a concluded contract between the parties for creating a fresh lease for 9 years w.e.f. 1.1.95 as alleged in the plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement if there was any concluded contract between the parties? 3. Whether Shri N.K. Mehra had any authority to enter into a draft lease deed on behalf of the defendant to bind the defendant? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of specific performance against the defendant? 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based on forged documents as alleged in the written statement? 6. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a concluded contract requires a meeting of the minds between the parties on all essential terms of the agreement. The court found that there was no meeting of the minds in this case because the parties had not agreed on the quantum of rent, which was an essential term of the lease.
Final Decision: The court dismissed S.I.S.'s claim for specific performance and awarded damages for use and occupation to K. Ramamoorthy.
( 1 ) IN Suit No. 3016/89 the plaintiff (hereinafter called the owner ) has prayed for the following reliefs :
"in view of the foregoing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to decree the following reliefs to the plaintiff against the defendant: (a) Relief for ejectment of the defendant from the premises No. 6, Shopping Commercial Complex, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, as shown in the plan filed in this Hon ble Court. (b) The defendant be directed to restore the property in its original condition and failing compliance by the defendant, the plaintiff be authorised to restore the said property in its original condition and a decree for the cost of the same amount of Rs. 20,000. 00 be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. (c) A decree for rent of the property from 1st August to 12th August, 1989, amounting to Rs. 15. 000. 00. (d) A decree for the contumacious use and occupation of the property from 13th August, 1989 to October, 1989, at Rs. 6,000. 00 per day. Total Rs. 4,62,000. 00. (e) The Hon ble Court may also decree the amount for the further use and occupation of the property with effect from 27th October, 1989, to the date of the delivery of the possession of the property to the plaintiff in its original condition and for the said period a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 per day with effect from 27th October, 1989, to the date of decree. The plaintiff undertakes to pay the additional Court fee required for the decree for the contumacious use and occupation of the property with effect from 27th October, 1989, to the date of delivery of the possession of the property in proper order. (f) The cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant. In Suit No. 2230/95 M/s. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (hereinafter called s. I. S. ) the defendant in Suit No. 3016/89 has filed this suit for specific performance claiming the following reliefs: "under the circumstances mentioned above, it is most humbly prayed that a decree for specific performance be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to execute a duly registered lease deed in terms of draft lease deed Annexure A to the plaint in relation to the property bearing No. 6, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi comprising of basement, mezzanine floor, ground floor, first floor, second floor on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. (b) Direct the defendant to execute the lease deed on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the proposed lease deed Annexure A to the plaint and have the same registered. (c) In the event of the defendant not complying the aforesaid directions, appoint an officer of the Court to have the lease deed executed and registered on the terms and conditions mentioned in the proposed lease deed Annexure A to the plaint. "
( 2 ). It is not necessary to refer to the pleadings in Suit No. 3016/89 as the fact that the S. I. S. was the lessee under the owner is not in dispute. The defence to the suit is that during the pendency of this suit the owner had agreed for execution of a fresh lease and the S. I. S. is entitled to renewal of the lease and in view of the compromise the S. I. S. had to seek the relief of specific performance.
( 3 ). In view of the fact that the S. I. S. is seeking the relief of specific performance in Suit No. 2230/95 it is necessary to notice the pleadings. It is stated in the plaint in paragraph 4:
"that since February/march, 1995, negotiations started between the parties in relation to this property for creating a fresh tenancy at an enhanced rent for a period of 9 years. The said negotiations were conducted by Mr. V. K. Singal, Chief Manager of the plaintiff. Shri G. D. Chhabra, Assistant Manager of the plaintiff Company for and on behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. Sujan Singh, Managing Director of the defendant Company as also Shri N. K. Mehra, Accountant of the defendant Group of Companies/associati
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
