REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The present suit has been brought by the plaintiff M/s. Karan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.42,66,771/- with pendente lite and future interest.

2. The facts as asserted in the plaint are within a narrow compass. The plaintiff company has been doing the business of liaison and property consultants. The defendant No.1 company was the owner of the building Great Eastern Plaza at 2A, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant No.1 had engaged its services to find out tenants for the entire building. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave a proposal to one M/s. Ericsson Communications Pvt. Ltd. whereby an area of 70000 sq. ft. was offered by the plaintiff to M/s. Ericsson on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- per sq. ft, which included the maintenance charges of the said building. In response to the said offer, discussions were held between the plaintiff and M/s. Ericsson and ultimately the deal was finalized with the plaintiff. In the first instance, M/s. Ericsson had agreed to take only the first, second and third floors of the building which was owned by the defendant No.1, while other portions were agreed to be taken at some later stage. A Memorandum of Understanding was accordingly executed between M/s. Ericsson and the defendant No.1 on 15.05.1996, whereby and whereunder it was agreed that M/s. Ericsson would in the first instance take the first, second and third floors on a monthly rent of Rs.59,37,447.45, on the terms and conditions incorporated therein. Ultimately, a lease was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of M/s. Ericsson on 4.9.1996, which was registered on 13.9.1996.

3. The plaintiff further alleges that though the fourth and sixth floors of the said building were owned by M/s. Punj Lloyds Ltd. and M/s. Living Media Ltd. respectively, they having purchased the same from the defendant No.1, but, for the purpose of dealing with the lease of the 4th and 6th floors, the defendant No.1 was given authority by the said purchasers to lease out the said two floors in favour of M/s. Ericsson. The plaintiff being the property dealer in the said deal, was to get brokerage from both the parties, equivalent to one months rent from M/s. Ericsson as well as the defendant No.1 herein.

4. It is further asserted in the plaint that after the lease was executed for the first, second and third floors of the building, the defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.59,37,447/- to the plaintiff in two equal installments. The first installment was paid in October, 1996 and the second installment in the year 1997. The lease with respect to 4th floor was got executed between M/s. Ericsson and M/s. Punj Lloyds on 10.02.1997 on a monthly rent of Rs.13,38,168/- and the lease with respect to the sixth floor was got executed between M/s. Ericsson and M/s. Living Media Ltd. at a monthly rent of Rs.12,18,521/- on the authority given to the defendant No.1 by the purchasers of the 4th and 6th floors. Accordingly, commission at the rate of 13,83,168/- being one months rent for the 4th floor and Rs.12,18,521/- being one months rent for the 6th floor became due and payable to the plaintiff from the defendant No.1, as it was the defendant No.1 alone who had engaged the services of the plaintiff as a broker. The defendant No.1 having refused to pay the aforesaid commission to the plaintiff, various notices were issued to the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff, but the defendant No.1 refuted its liability to pay the aforesaid amount, which, according to the plaintiff it is liable to pay with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the rate prevalent in the trade. The plaintiff accordingly prays that a decree be passed in its favour for a sum of Rs.26,01,689/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the said amount, totalling to Rs.42,66,771/-.

5. The defendants No.1 and 2 have filed separate written statements, but both the written statements are on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document