High Court Of Delhi
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
ADITYA FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Decided On : 07/17/1998
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - LEASE AGREEMENT - ENFORCEABILITY - UNLAWFUL CONTRACT - DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957 - SECTION 14 - VIOLATION - PUBLIC POLICY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Bank sought specific performance of a lease agreement for a property owned by the defendants. The parties had negotiated the terms of the lease, including the rent, area, and duration, and the defendants had agreed to construct the property according to the plaintiff's specifications. However, the defendants later withdrew their offer, claiming that the agreement was not enforceable as it was an agreement to enter into an agreement in the future and that the use of the property for non-conforming purposes would violate Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a concluded contract was made between the parties to give on lease the aforesaid property on the terms finally indicated in the aforementioned letter dated 16th December, 1994 and it is not a case to enter into an agreement of lease on a future date as alleged by the defendants. The court further held that the contract was unlawful and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act as it violated Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, which prohibits the use of land or buildings in a zone otherwise than in conformity with the Master Plan.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the parties was an enforceable lease agreement or an agreement to enter into an agreement in the future. 2. Whether the use of the property for non-conforming purposes would violate Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A contract can come into existence between the parties by exchange of letters. 2. A contract is unlawful and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act if it is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an ad interim injunction and allowed the defendants' application to vacate the ex parte ad interim injunction granted earlier.
( 1 ) THIS order will govern the of I. As. 9370 and 12532/
( 2 ) SUIT was filed by State Bank of India, inter alia, alleging that it is a body, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and has one of its branches at Swasthya Vihar. Vikas Marg, Delhi. Defendant No. 1 is a Company registered under the Company Act, 1956 and defendant No. 2 is the Director thereof. Defendant No. 1 owns property constructed on plot bearing No. 9 in New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi. Swasthya Vihar branch of the plaintiff at present is operating from premises No. A-13. As the plaintiff Bank was in need of bigger accommodation for smooth running of the said branch by the letter dated 12th April, 1993 the defendants offered on lease said property No. 9 having basement, ground and the first floors. It is further alleged that in a meeting held on 4th July, 1994 between the officers of the plaintiff Bank and defendant No. 2 defendante agreed to provide area of 6,600 sq. ft. in the said property on a monthly rent to be calculated @ Rs. 11. 00 per sq. ft. for the basement, @ Rs. 14. 00 per sq. ft. for the ground floor and @ Rs. 13. 25 per sq. ft. for the first floor. Certain broad terms and conditions governing the lease were also discussed in that meeting. By the letter dated 10th October, 1994 defendants conveyed that the period of lease will be 15 years with enhancement @ 25% in the rent after every five years. Thereafter, broad terms and conditions governing the lease were duly communicated by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants by the letter dated 16th December, 1994. Defendant No. 2 in token of her acceptance of the terms and conditions noted in the said letter excepting Condition No. (ix) which provided for the maintenance and upkeep of the property signed a copy of the said letter. Acceptance of Condition No. (ix) was also later on communicated by the defendants to the plaintiff by the letter dated 27th January, 1995. Defendants by their another letter dated 10th January, 1995 requested the plaintiff Bank to grant loan of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs which the plaintiff Bank paid on 24th July, 1995. By an undertaking dated 24th July, 1995, defendants under took to complete the entire construction in the aforesaid property as per the requirements and specifications of the plaintiff Bank and to hand over possession thereof to it. Defendants further furnished indemnity bond on 9th May, 1995 thereby indemnifying the plain tiff from any loss or expenses which it may have to incur on account of running the branch in the said property. It is stated that the layout plan for construction of strong room and locker room etc. prepared by the; engineer of the plaintiff Bank was provided to the defendants on 16th February, 1995 while the blue prints thereof on 3rd April, 1995. On visit of the property by the civil engineer of the plaintiff Bank on 25th September, 1995, he found that the construction work was not completed by the defendants as per the specifications provided. However, by the letter dated 28th Septeniber,1995 short-comings were conveyed by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants. However, instead of removing the short-comings, by the letter dated 17th October, 1995 defendants intimated the plaintiff Bank about the withdrawal of their offer to lease out the aforesaid property and to re-negotiate the rent. Plaintiff Bank was always willing and ready to take possession of the property. It was prayed that a decree of specific performance may be passed against the defendants directing them to complete the construction work in said property No. 9 and hand over possession thereof to the plaintiff Bank at the agreed monthly rent of Rs. 82,600. 00 and also to execute lease deed for a period of 15 years in favour of the plaintiff Bank. Direction is further sought for adiustment of the loan amount of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs paid
( 3 ) IN the written statement by way of preliminary objection defendants have alleged that the agreement whose specific perform
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.