The interpretation of lease agreement clauses, including those related to rent, security deposit, and termination, influenced the court's decision on the liabilities of the parties.

V.K. Jain, J.

1. The plaintiff is the owner of the shop bearing number G-20, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. The above referred shop was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of 33 months. A registered lease deed between the parties was executed in this regard. The rent of the aforesaid shop was agreed between the parties as under:

17/12/2007 to 16/11/2008 - Rs.2,50,000/- 17/11/2008 to 16/10/2009 - Rs.2,66,250/- 17/10/2009 to 16/09/2010 - Rs.2,83,557/-

2. For the month of March, April and June, 2009, the plaintiff had given relaxation of Rs.2,16,250/- per month in the rent to the defendants. A notice dated 4.7.2009 was sent by the defendants, to the plaintiff, for handing over possession and refund of security deposit. This, according to the plaintiff, was contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed, which envisaged three months’ advance notice to be given by the defendants and the security was refundable only after handing over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to it. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.2,66,250/- towards unpaid rent for July, 2009, Rs.27424/- as service tax on that amount, Rs.7,98,750/- being rent for three months and service tax amounting to Rs.82,272/- on that amount, Rs.40,625/- towards enhancement of rent for two and a half months and Rs.4,185/- towards service tax on that amount. Thus, a total of Rs.12,19,506/- has been claimed. After adjustment of the security deposit of Rs.10 lac, a sum of Rs.2,19,505/-, according to plaintiff, remained due to it from the defendants towards arrears of rent and service tax. The plaintiff has also claimed mesne profits amounting to Rs. 6,99,250/- @ Rs.3,46,125/- per month for the period from 17.10.2009 to 17.12.2009. A decree for possession of the suit premises was also sought in the suit along with permanent injunction restraining defendants from creating any third party rights in terms of the suit premises. During pendency of this suit, defendants vacated the suit premises and the disputes between the parties are now limited to the security deposit, arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages for use and occupation.

3. Defendants filed written statement contesting the suit and counterclaim for recovery of Rs.10, 80,000/- has also been filed by them. It has been alleged in the written statement that since defendant no.1 had expressed its inability to pay the rent @ Rs.2,66,250/- and sought to terminate the tenancy, the plaintiff had agreed to reduce the rent to Rs.50,000/- and three consecutive MoUs dated 14.4.2009, 13.5.2009 and 10.6.2009 were executed in this regard. It is further alleged that consequent to a telephonic conversation, which defendant no.2 had with plaintiff, a lease termination letter dated 11.7.2009 was issued by defendant no.1, to the plaintiff, who was asked to take possession and refund security deposit of Rs.10 lac. It is further alleged that the plaintiff refused to receive vacant possession of the suit premises from the defendants. As regards rent for July, 2009, it is alleged that since the rent was payable in advance and rent upto 17.7.2009 had already been paid to the plaintiff on 7.6.2009, the defendants who had offered possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, vide letter dated 11.7.2009, are not liable to pay the same. It is further alleged that the plaintiff had no justification in not accepting possession of the tenanted premises from the defendants on receipt of letter dated 11.7.2009 and, therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay any rent for the notice period. As regards service tax, the case of the defendants is that there was no agreement between the parties for payment of the said tax by them.

In the counterclaim, defendants have claimed deposit of Rs.10 lac with interest on that amount @ 18% per annum, amounting to Rs.1,80,000/-. On January 18, 2011, the learned counsel for the parties stated that the suit be heard and finally decided on the b