The interpretation of the collaboration agreement and the rights of the parties in a property dispute.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Cm(M) 296/2017

1. The present petition arises out of order dated 23rd January, 2017. The genesis of the disputes between the parties is a collaboration agreement entered into by the Petitioner-Shri. Deepak Mehta who is also the Plaintiff in the suit (hereinafter "Plaintiff") on 15th March, 2013 with Shri Desh Bandhu Garg who is Defendant No.1 in the suit (hereinafter "builder"). As per the said collaboration agreement, the builder had agreed to construct the stilt parking on the ground floor, upper ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with automatic lift in property bearing no.1/11647, and New No. A-30, Built on Plot No.A-59, admeasuring 200 sq. yds. i.e. 167.22 sq. mtrs., out of Khasra no. 27, 28, 63, 92 to 97, 101, 481/102, 521/298-299, 448/26, 455/31, situated in the area of Village Uldhan Pur in the Abadi of Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara Delhi-110032 (hereinafter "suit property").

2. As per clause 1 of the agreement, the builder had to demolish the entire structure and construct the said floors at his own costs and expense after obtaining the sanctioned plans. The construction was to be completed within a period of 15 months. As a consideration for the construction, under the collaboration agreement, the rights in the third floor along with the roof rights were to vest with the builder and all the remaining floors were to be owned by the Plaintiff. The builder was to also pay a rent of Rs. 45,000/- per month to the Plaintiff during the period when the construction was ongoing. It was also agreed that the Plaintiff would execute a sale deed for the third floor in favour of any intending buyers, whom the builder may identify. It was, however, made clear that the possession of the third floor of the suit property was to be given only when the proposed building would be completed as agreed between the Plaintiff and the builder. The builder was permitted to dispose of his share in the suit property i.e. third floor with roof rights by way of a sale deed. Clause 20 of the agreement reads as under:

"20. That in case if the builder discontinue the works on the building and the work will not pertain to the annexure then the first party free to claim any damage and compensation from the second party."

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the builder abandoned the work despite the fact that the third floor was permitted to be sold by the Plaintiff to a third party. The builder has executed a sale deed in favour of the third party who is Defendant No.2 Shri Hitendra Kumar Jain, vide sale deed dated 19th May, 2014. In order to enable the builder to execute the said sale deed, according to ld. counsel for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had executed a conditional sale deed on 4th April, 2014. It was, however, made clear that the possession would be handed over only after the entire building was completed. Since the builder had abandoned the premises and had also stopped paying the rent amount of Rs.45,000/- per month, the Plaintiff filed the suit seeking various reliefs including cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Defendant no.2, permanent injunction etc., The Plaintiff also moved an application seeking permission to complete the remaining construction in the suit property. The said application was disposed of vide the first impugned order dated 23rd January, 2017. The application was rejected by the ld. Trial Court on the ground that the only right of the Plaintiff is to seek compensation. The findings of the Trial Court read as under:

"Hence, it is clear from the perusal of the collaboration agreement that in case of discontinuance of construction work by the builder plaintiff can only claim damages and compensation. Plaintiff has not reserved any right to complete the construction work on his own on failure of builder to complete the building within stipulated time.

11. Perusal of the record further shows that plaintiff has stated in his plaint that defendant no. 1 fai