Specific performance was not permissible in this case, and rent of the lock-in period in a Lease Deed cannot be claimed without pleading loss from vacation by the tenant of the property prior to the expiry of the term of lease.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.1,92,15,000/- with pendent lite and future interest at 15% per annum, pleading (i) that vide registered Lease Deed dated 9th August, 2012, the plaintiff had let out a portion of his property at 28, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi to the defendant, at a rent of Rs.4,35,000/- per month and maintenance charges of Rs.15,000/- per month, for a period of six years, the whole of which was described as lock-in period and with a provision for increase in rent and maintenance charges by 20% over the last paid rent after three years; (ii) that the defendant paid Rs.27,00,000/- to the plaintiff as interest free security deposit, to be refunded by the plaintiff to the defendant against delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the leased premises on conclusion of the lease; (iii) that since the entire period of the lease, of six years was lock-in period, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any right to terminate the lease; (iv) that the defendant paid rent till the month of July, 2014 and without informing the plaintiff, vacated the property on 12th August, 2014, even though the lock-in period of the lease was till 14th January, 2018; and, (v) that in terms of the Lease Deed and Maintenance Agreement, rent and maintenance charges towards lock-in period of July, 2014 to 14th January, 2015 of Rs.24,75,000/- and rent and maintenance charges for the remaining lock-in period of 15th January, 2015 to 14th January, 2018 of Rs.1,94,40,000/- was due from the defendant to the plaintiff and after adjusting the interest free security of Rs.27,00,000/-, a total sum of Rs.1,92,15,000/- was due from the defendant to the plaintiff towards rent and maintenance charges of the lock-in period; thus, the suit for recovery of Rs.1,92,15,000/-. It was the plea of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was entitled to the said monies under the Lease Deed and the Maintenance Agreement.

2. The suit came up first before this court on 30th September, 2014, when without going into the aspect of maintainability thereof on the averments in the plaint itself, inasmuch as there was no plea of the plaintiff having suffered any loss or damage on account of breach of lease by the defendant, the suit was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued.

3. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. However there is no need to go into the defence of the defendant inasmuch as, as aforesaid, the suit on the averments in the plaint did not lie.

4. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement.

5. Vide order dated 26th July, 2016, again without going into the aspect of maintainability of the suit, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the suit: -

"(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.1,85,74,500/- against the defendant towards the amount allegedly payable in respect of the suit premises for the period between 1.7.2014 to 14.1.2018, after adjustment of the interest free security deposit of Rs.26,10,000/-? (OPP).

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.6,40,500/- against the defendant towards the maintenance charges in respect of the suit premises from 1.7.2014 to 14.1.2018, after adjustment of the interest free security deposit of Rs.90,000/-? (OPP).

(3) If issues No.1 & 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether he is entitled to interest on the amount decreed in his favour and if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)

(4) Whether the defendant was entitled to terminate the lease deed dated 9.3.2012, in terms of clause 7(b) thereof, containing a lock in period of six years? (OPD).

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit? (OPP).

(6) Relief."

and the parties relegated to evidence on commission.

6. On 19th January, 2017, the counsels stated that recording of evidence stood completed. The suit was ordered to be listed i