The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act in determining the entitlement to user charges and water/electricity charges.

JUDGMENT :

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. Per order dated 26.09.2019, none appeared on behalf the respondent despite service.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02/South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned ‘Trial Court’) in CS No.53/2011 whereby the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs.19,93,065/- along with interest was partly decreed and disposed of.

3. The brief facts are:-

(a) the appellant / plaintiff had given the Ground Floor premises of Property bearing No. H-6, Green Park Main, New Delhi - 110016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') on rent to the respondent vide lease deed dated 27.04.2004 on a monthly rental of Rs.1,10,000/- for a period of three years;

(b) the lease deed contained clause No.2 to the effect”-

"The Lease shall be renewable thereafter at the sole option of the Lessee for further three year periods. The aforesaid rent will be subject to an enhancement of 15% on the last rent payable at the expiry of each three year period. The Lessee shall show his Intention by Registered Post A fresh Lease will be executed and Registered after every three years."

(c) on 31.03.2007 the lease expired by efflux of time and on 02.05.2007, 26.06.2007 and 07.10.2007 the appellant allegedly called upon the respondent to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property and sent letters on the above said dates by registered AD post;

(d) on 31.03.2007 the premises while in use of the respondent was sealed by the MCD since was being used in contravention of the rules and byelaws of the MCD;

(e) on 17.08.2007 the premises was temporary desealed by the MCD for a period of three days on an application of the respondent, during which period the respondent removed its material and goods from the premises;

(f) on 20.01.2008 the respondent handed over notional possession of the suit property to the appellant and on 04.07.2008 the premises was permanently desealed by the MCD;

(g) on 12.07.2008, an architect inspected the suit property in the presence of Mr.Tehal Singh, a representative of the respondent and Mr. Anil Verma, son of the appellant to assess the damage caused to the suit property,

(h) thereafter, on 11.11.2008, a legal notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent sent reply dated 18.11.2008; and

(i) on 28.02.2009 this recovery suit was filed by appellant; disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment.

4. It is the submission of the appellant (a) the suit property was vacated by the respondent on 20.01.2008, yet the learned Trial Court awarded only two months’ rental and that too at the old rate i.e., @ Rs.1,10,000/- pm; (b) the water and electricity charges were not granted till 20.01.2008; and (c) architect report was never considered and no amount on account of damage to the premises was given.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued, if the lease was to be renewed, the respondent was required to pay rental with 15% increase on the last paid rent, hence rental for the period from 01.04.2007 ought to have been increased to Rs.1,26,500/- per month, yet the learned Trial Court granted rent for two months i.e. for April and May 2007 @ Rs.1,10,000/- per month only, despite the learned Trial Court having held the respondent wished to renew the lease and had even purchased stamp papers worth Rs.33,700/-.

6. The defence of the respondent as culled out in the written statement was they had paid the water and electricity charges upto May 2007 when the premises was sealed but yet were liable to pay Rs.55,000/- as per their own estimate towards electricity and water charges for the period from June 2007 to 20.01.2008 during which period the suit property was lying sealed, yet it denied Rs.73,781/- was payable towards electricity and water charges.

7. Further the respondent urged it was liable to pay only Rs.2,20,000/- towards ren