The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving actual loss or damage in claims for liquidated damages and the need for evidence to support claims of market rent and final settlement.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,04,628/-with interest and recovery of specific movable properties consisting of 15 KVA diesel generator, one split 3.0 ton Air conditioner and 2 split Air conditioners of 1.5 ton capacity each or in the alternative recovery of Rs.5,04,690/-against the appellants. (For convenience the respondent would be referred as plaintiff and appellants as defendants).

2. The facts leading to the matter are that the plaintiff through a property broker approached the defendants for taking the property bearing No.9/20 ground floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the said premises”) on rent and asked that the said premises be fully furnished with complete furniture and house-hold equipment etc.

3. Thereafter, four agreements, including one lease deed dated November 27, 1998 commencing from November 23, 1998 to November 27, 2000, two hire agreements (dated November 27, 1998 commencing from November 23, 1998 to November 22, 2000 and November 30, 1998 commencing from November 23, 1998 to November 22, 2000) and one license agreement for parking dated November 27, 1998 commencing from November 23, 1998 to November 22, 2000 were executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. The period of contracts was fixed for a term of 2 years.

4. The agreement also provided clause for liquidated damages pre-determined between the parties to be paid by the plaintiff in case the plaintiff failed to vacate the premises and hand over the hired articles.

5. By an unregistered lease deed dated November 27, 1998, Ex.PW-1/1 and D-1, defendant No.1 rented out the property to the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/-. In addition the details of other four agreements executed between the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are given as under :-

(i) Hire Agreement dated November 27, 1998 between the defendant No.2, Mona International through defendant No.1 and the plaintiff for payment of hire charges in respect of bathroom fittings, geysers, light fittings, exhaust fans, grills etc. @ Rs.30,000/- per month (Ex.PW-1/3 and PW-1/D1).

(ii) Hire Agreement dated November 27, 1998 between the defendant No.3, Manoj Gulshan and Sons (HUF) through defendant No.1 and the plaintiff for payment of hire charges for wooden wardrobes, showcases, fancy crockery racks etc. @ Rs.30,000/-per month (Ex.PW-1/2 and PW-1/D2).

(iii) Hire Agreement dated November 30, 1998 between the defendant No.2 Mona International through Attorney Ms.Kamayani Suri, defendant No.4 and the plaintiff for payment of hire charges in respect of tables, chairs, sofa set beds, microwave, cooking range etc. @ Rs.18,000/- per month (Ex.PW-1/4).

(iv) Licence Contract dated November 27, 1998 (Ex.PW-1/D3) between defendant No.4 and the plaintiff for use of car parking space on payment of Rs.12,000/- per month. (Ex.PW-1/5 and PW 1/D3). So, under the five agreements, the total monthly amount payable by the plaintiff was Rs.1,08,000/- to the defendants.

6. The plaintiff had paid security deposit of Rs.12,96,000/-in respect of the five agreements to the defendants in the following manner:

(i) Rs.2,16,000/-in respect of Lease Deed Ex.PW-1/1 between appellant No.1 and the respondent.

(ii) Rs.3,60,000/-in respect of Hire Agreement Ex.PW-1/3 between appellant No.2 through appellant No.1 and the respondent.

(iii) Rs.3,60,000/- in respect of Hire Agreement Ex.PW-1/2 between appellant No.3 and the respondent.

(iv) Rs.2,16,000/-in respect of Hire Agreement dated 30th November, 1998 Ex.PW-1/4 between appellant No.2 through Ms. Kamayani Suri and the respondent.

(v) Rs.1,44,000/- in respect of Licence Contract Ex.PW-1/5 between appellant No.4 and the respondent.

7. In detail, the case of the defendants before the learned Single Judge was that when the expiry date of agreements was coming close, the defendants had no inclination to extend the said agreements therefore they sent notices dated the September 9, 2000 and October 22, 2000 requ