( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,13,125. 00 The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that in April 1983, defendant represented to the plaintiff that the defendant was the owner of the premises known as Pawan House located at Plot No. 2. Zamrudpur Community Centre, Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi and made an offer to the plaintiff to demise and grant the said premises on lease to the plaintiff on certain terms and conditions and thereafter from time to time various negotiations took place between the parties in connection with the said premises. It was pleaded that in course of the said negotiations, on or about August 6, 1983, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to the defendant as token money pending finalisation of the agreement and/or lease relating to the premises and the said loan was accepted by the defendant subject to the finalisation of the lease deed as per its terms and conditions. It was alleged that thereafter further negotiations took place between the parties in course of which the plaintiff discovered that the. representation made by the defendant was untrue and in that there were serious and material defects in the title of the defendant to the premises inasmuch as it was found that the defendant was not the owner of the premises and had no right or authority whatsoever to grant or demise the premises on lease as such and the defendant had not obtained and did not hold and could not furnish to the plaintiff Completion Certificate or Occupation Certificate and other certificates necessary and required under the law and the prevailing practices and usages of the Delhi Development Authority (for short dda ) for occupying, possessing and using the premises. So, it was averred that the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was wholly incompetent and incapable of granting or demising the premises on lease to the plaintiff and in the circumstances, no agreement of lease or lease deed in respect of the premises could be arrived at or executed between the parties.

( 2 ) IT was next pleaded that on or about October 27, 1983, the plaintiff called off the negotiations between the parties in respect of the premises and demanded from the defendant the refund of the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and by letter dated November 17/18, 1983, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant under the Interest Act, 1978. So, pleading that the said amount of Rupees 1,00,000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on a consideration which had totally failed, the defendant is legally bound to refund the said amount claiming interest @ 21% per annum from August 1983. Plaintiff claims Rs. 1,13,125. 00 from the defendant.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT has contested the suit pleading that the plaint has not been signed, verified and the suit instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff company. On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant had never represented to the plaintiff that the defendant was the owner of the property in question and that the plaintiff, in fact, all along knew that M/s. Pawan Builders Private Limited, a sister concern of the defendant company, has been and is the owner of the property in question and the defendant has been authorised by the said owner to lease out the property and that even M/s. Pawan Builders Private Limited had been communicating with the plaintiff with regard to the agreement of lease.

( 4 ) THEN, it is pleaded that the defendant, in fact, was the promoter of the building and was authorised to let out the building and the plaintiff was all along aware of this authority and sometime in early August 1983 and after certain negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant for taking the said property on lease for a period of three years, the plaintiff vide its letter dated August 5, 1983, agreed to take the premises in question on lease for a monthly rent of Rs. 78,000. 00 and the tenancy was to commence with effect from September 1, 1983, and the pl