The court emphasized the importance of the Sub Lease Agreement, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the deemed admission of averments in the plaint due to the defense being taken off record.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present suit has been filed for recovery by plaintiffs landlord-owner against defendants-tenant forRs.58,79,939/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine Only) along with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum on the following basis:-

Particulars	Amount
Rent form May, 2012 to August, 2013 @ Rs.3,40866/- p.m.	51,12,990/-
Interest @12% p.a. till the date of filing of the suit.	7,66,949/-
Total	58,79,939/-

2. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced herein below:-

“a. Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.58,79,939/- and future interest in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on account of rent for the period May 2012 to August 2013:

b. Award the costs of the suit along with Court Fee, litigation expenses in favour of the Plaintiffs; and

Any other further order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded to the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants in the peculiar facts & circumstances of this case.”

3. On 15th September, 2017, this Court had imposed costs of Rs. 35,000/- on the defendant nos.1 and 6, payable to Lok Nayak Hospital, while condoning the delay in filing the written statement by the defendant nos.1 and 6. However, since the said defendants did not pay the aforementioned costs, this Court was constrained to take the written statement filed by the defendant nos.1 and 6 off the record vide order dated 12th September, 2018. Additionally, vide the same order, since none was appearing for defendant nos.2 to 5, they were proceeded ex parte.

4. The plaintiff shave filed their evidence by way of affidavit. However, thereafter, the defendant nos. 1 and 6 stopped appearing. Consequently, the defendant nos.1 and 6 are proceeded ex parte.

5. The contentions and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs are as under:-

i. The defendant no.1, a partnership firm comprising of defendant nos.2 to 6, had been inducted as a tenant in respect of commercial space admeasuring 1497 sq. ft. super built-up area bearing No. C-101, First Floor, Block C, Ansal Plaza, Hudco Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit Property’) by Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. vide Sub Lease Agreement dated 13th November, 2001. (Ex. PW-1/2)

ii. On 28th September, 2004, the plaintiffs acquired the Suit Property from Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd.

iii. A Sub Lease Agreement dated 01st October, 2004 (Ex. PW-1/3) was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1. The relevant portion of the said lease agreement reads as under: -

“2. Duration

That the present Sub-Lease Agreement is for an initial period of three years out of which there will be an irrevocable period of 20 months (i.e. upto 31.5.2006) and the tenancy shall be deemed to commence with effect from 1st day October 2004. The sub-Lease agreement can be renewed at the option of the lesseee for a further period of 3 years with an escalation of 15% of the last paid rent. A fresh agreement will be stamped and got registered for the renewed term. After the expiry of above period the lease can be extended for further period at the option of the FIRST PARTY subject to mutually agreed terms and conditions by the SECOND PARTY every renewed term.

3: Rent

That the SECOND PARTY shall pay a sum of Rs.2,96,406/- (Rupees two lac ninety six thousand two hundred four only) per month as rent calculated at the rate of Rs.198/- per sq. ft. on super area basis per month to the FIRST PARTY for the demised premises of 1497 sq.ft. (super built up area).”

iv. The defendants were habitual defaulters and never tendered rent of the Suit Property in time.

v. The plaintiffs were constrained to adjust the outstanding dues of the defendants from the Security Deposit of the defendants in terms of Clause 7 of the Sub Lease A