SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Del) 2130

High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI, J.
Ram Kishan Gupta
Versus
Seed Infrastructure And Solutions Pvt Ltd.
CS(OS). No. 1173 of 2013
Decided on : 18-09-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Plaintiff:Hemant Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Defendant:Sidharth Tewatia, Advocate.

Court has discretion to pronounce judgment if defendant fails to file written statement within allowed time and does not provide valid reasons for the delay.

Headnote:

Written Statement - Recovery of Money - Order VIII Rule 10, Section 151 CPC - Order VIII Rule 1

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money for arrears of rent and maintenance charges. Defendant failed to file written statement within the allowed time. Plaintiff filed application for pronouncement of judgment. Defendant failed to provide valid reasons for delay.

Finding of the Court:

Defendant failed to file written statement within allowed time and did not provide valid reasons for the delay. Plaintiff's claims were deemed admitted. Court found in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.

Issues: Failure of defendant to file written statement within allowed time, Valid reasons for delay in filing written statement, Plaintiff's claim for recovery of money

Ratio Decidendi: Court has discretion to pronounce judgment if defendant fails to file written statement within allowed time and does not provide valid reasons for the delay. Plaintiff's claims are deemed admitted in such cases.

Final Decision: The suit stands decreed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the recovery of money.

Judgment :

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of money in the sum of Rs.30,66,740/-towards arrears of rent and maintenance charges together with interest at the rate of 24%, per annum till realization, and mandatory injunction.

2. Summons were issued in the suit on 31.5.2013. As per the service report defendant was served on 22.1.2014 for 10.2.2014, on which date the defendant entered appearance through counsel and time was granted to file written statement, however, the same has not been filed till date.

3. Present application, being I.A.10239/2014, has been filed by plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for pronouncement of judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as the defendant has failed to file the written statement. Notice in this application was issued on 26.5.2014. Reply to this application has been filed. In the reply, the defendant has explained that written statement could not be filed as the day-to-day affairs of the plaintiff company are being looked into by Mr.Anirban Roy, Director of the company, without whose knowledge or permission, no steps can be taken by the company. It is also stated that Director of the defendant company is a businessman and needs to travel to various remote areas throughout the country for his business and for this reason the counsel was not able to establish contact with the defendant for a long time, however, travel details along with tickets have been filed along with the application.

4. Another ground stated in the reply is that the mother-in-law of the Director of the defendant expired in the month of February (year not mentioned) due to which the defendant was caught up in urgent family affairs.

5. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties it would be necessary to notice the facts of this case.

6. As per the plaint, the plaintiff claims himself to be the absolute owner of the entire second floor of the proprety bearing no.RZ-153-C, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, situated at Vasant Plaza, Aruna Asar Ali Marg, Khasra No.1236, Village Mehrauli (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Defendant company is stated to be engaged in the business of undertaking Infrastructure Technology Solution Projects for the Government and other core sector industries.

7. In the month of July, 2011, the defendant company through its Associate Vice President, Mr.Manoj Kmar Chadha, approached the plaintiff for taking on lease the aforestated property. A registered Lease deed was signed between the parties on 19.7.2011, which was duly registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar V at Serial No.1393 in Book No.1, Volume No.11326 on Page Nos.83 to 92. As per the lease deed, the lease was for a period of five years with a lock-in period of three years and two months. Besides, the agreed rate of rent for the first year of lease i.e. w.e.f. 15.7.2011 to 14.7.2012 was Rs.1.50 lakhs, per month, with an increase of 10% increase every year, which worked out to be as under:

(i) From 15/07/2011 to 14/07/2012 @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month.

(ii) From 15/07/2012 to 14/07/2013 @ Rs.1,65,000/- per month.

(iii) From 15/07/2013 to 14/07/2014 @ Rs.1,81,500/- per month.

(iv) From 15/07/2014 to 14/07/2015 @ Rs.1,99,650/- per month.

(v) From 15/07/2015 to 14/07/2016 @ Rs.2,19,615/- per month.

8. In addition to the above rate of rent, the defendant was also liable to pay Rs.4,000/-, per month, as maintenance charges to the care taker of the building. The defendant was also required to pay Rs.4.50 lakhs to the plaintiff towards interest-free security deposit, which stands paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

9. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant paid rent only upto 15.2.2012 that too after deducting income tax at source and thereafter neither rent nor maintenance charges were paid despite repeated requests and demands made through email dated 28.7.2012, 6.8.2012, 8.8.2012, 17.8.2012, 23.9.2012, 26.9.2012, 7.11.2012 and 17.12.2012. The defe





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top