VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No. 7051/2018 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 197/2018 and C.M. No. 7050/2018 (stay)

2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 12.1.2018 by which trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 11 lacs. Trial court has not granted any interest and costs in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Suit has been decreed for the amount of Rs. 11 lacs on account of trial court holding by the impugned judgment that the appellant/defendant had failed to execute the lease deed of the premises of the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff in spite of an agreement between the parties and therefore the respondent/plaintiff had to take on lease another property on a higher rate of rent and hence the difference in the amount of rent was decreed against the appellant/defendant in terms of the impugned judgment.

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant is the owner of the property bearing no. M-5, South Extension-II, New Delhi. On account of the respondent/plaintiff having to vacate its existing premises at South Extension by 31.3.2004, therefore for an alternative accommodation the respondent/plaintiff had issued an advertisement in the leading newspapers on 8.6.2003. The appellant/defendant in response had offered her property on lease to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the written proposal dated 9.7.2003. There was further correspondence entered into between the parties for finalization of various terms of the lease and ultimately the last set of correspondences are the letter dated 1.1.2004 of the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff, response of the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant dated 3.3.2004 and lastly the reply of the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff of the same date 3.3.2004. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that a contract was finalized between the parties for the respondent/plaintiff to be granted lease by the appellant/defendant of the suit property and since the appellant/defendant failed to execute the lease deed therefore the respondent/plaintiff had to take a premises on rent by paying a higher rental amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- and therefore the subject suit was filed claiming the difference @ Rs. 35,000/- per month totaling to Rs. 21 lacs with an additional amount being claimed of Rs. 1 lakh towards litigation expenses for facing contempt proceedings in the contempt case filed by the previous landlord and a further sum of Rs. 2 lacs towards advertisement costs and arranging of alternative premises.

4. The appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing her written statement. She pleaded that no contract was ever finalized between the parties and there were only unsuccessful negotiations for grant of lease and the negotiations did not fructify. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.

5. After completion of pleadings, trial court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaint is signed and verified and the suit is filed by a duly authorized person. If so, its effect? OPP

2. Whether there existed a concluded contract between the parties and the defendant was pursuant thereto obliged to let out the premises in question to the plaintiff? OPP

3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages for breach of contract. If so, what amount? OPP

Issues on Counter-Claim

1. Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay rent to the defendant for the period from May, 2003 to March, 2004 @ 2,00,000/- p.m. as claimed in the Counter-claim and Rs. 8,00,000/- as damages along with interest?”

6. I may note that counter-claim has been decreed in favour of the appellant/defendant for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs