RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

.1. The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiffs with respect to the portion of the basement and the portion of the ground floor of property No. L-7, Green Park Extension Market, New Delhi. The plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiff No.2 claim to be entitled to separate portions of the basement and the ground floor let out to the defendant, hence four separate registered lease deeds, all identical in terms, were executed i.e., two of the plaintiff No.1 with the defendant with respect to his share of the basement and the ground floor and two of the plaintiff No.2 with the defendant of her share of the basement and the ground floor. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of Rs 31,07,875/- on the ground:- (a) that the leases after the expiry of period of three years were renewable for further two periods of three years each at an increased rent of 25% on the last paid rent; (b) that the total rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs for the first term of 25th June, 1998 to 24th June, 2001 was to be Rs 2,75,000/- per month and for the second term of three years from 25th June, 2001 to 24th June, 2004 was to be total of Rs 3,43,750/- per month; (c) that the defendant under the lease deeds was entitled to vacate the premises at any time within the ?lease period of 9 years? by giving not less than six months notice in writing by

.registered post to that effect to the plaintiffs; (d) that the defendant, at the time of vacation of the premises, was liable to hand over the same in the same condition as at the time of inception of the tenancy natural wear and tear excepted; (e) that the defendant vide letters dated 30th April, 2001 received by the plaintiffs on 8th May, 2001 intimated to the plaintiffs its intent to vacate the premises on the expiry of the first term of three years on 25th June, 2001 but sought to retain the premises for one or two months thereafter to complete the process of shifting. That the said notice was not a notice of six months as contemplated under the lease deeds; (f) that the defendant thereafter for the months of June and July, 2001 continued to pay the rent at the same rate as payable for the first three years notwithstanding the term in the lease deeds of increase in the rent by 25% w.e.f. 25th June, 2001 and in spite of demand being made in that regard; (g) that the defendant vacated the premises on 24th August, 2001, even though the premises on that date were not in the condition in which the defendant was liable to deliver in terms of the lease deeds and even though there was extensive damage to the premises and the fixtures and fittings provided therein; the plaintiff without prejudice to their rights and contentions took possession of the same and the defendant on its part undertook to settle the account and carry out the repairs and remove the damages to the premises. The defendant, however, failed to do so in spite of repeated requests and reminders of the plaintiff; (h) that the defendant ultimately carried out some repairs to the premises in the month of January and February 2002. The plaintiff thus claimed in the suit for recovery of Rs 1,37,500/- towards shortfall in rent by 25% paid for the months of June and July, 2001 Rs 3,43,750/- towards rent for the month of August, 2001 Rs.24,06,250/-towards the rent for the months of September, 2001 to February, 2002 in lieu of six months notice period and also for not restoring the premises to its original condition as agreed Rs. 46,735/- towards costs of rectification of air conditioning equipment Total Rs 29,34,235/- ` Rs. 1,73,640/- towards interest at 18% on the aforesaid amounts from 24th January, 2002 to 24th May, 2002. Total 31,07,875/-

.2. The defendant contested the suit pleading, inter alia,: i. that the lease was for a term of three years only and stamp duty had also been paid on the lease deed for a terms of three years and not for a term of nine years; ii. that the defendant having notified the plaintiff o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document