IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in construction and its attribution influenced the court's decision, leading to the invalidity of the lease termination and dismissal of the counter-claim for refund of advance money.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

(Prayer in OSA (CAD) No. 154 of 2021: Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2021 passed in C.S.No.692 of 2012 and dismiss the judgment and decree to the extent of directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,14,080/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakh Fourteen Thousand and Eighty only) along with intererst at the rate of 12% from 29.10.2008 to the respondent.

In OSA (CAD) No. 150 of 2021: Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2021 passed in C.S.No.692 of 2012 to the extent of dismissal of the counter-claim filed by the appellant, and allow the counter-claim by directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,43,273/- (One Crore Eighteen Lakh Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Three only) along with interest at the rate of 24% from 29.11.2007 till the date of payment.)

1. By this common Judgment, the following appeals are being disposed of:

(i) OSA (CAD) NOS.154 of 2021 preferred assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2021 passed in C.S.No.692 of 2012, by the defendant therein, praying to set aside the same.

(ii) OSA (CAD) NOS.150 of 2021 preferred assailing the rejection of the counter-claim in Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2021 passed in C.S.No.692 of 2012, by the defendant therein, praying to allow the counter-claim.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit i.e., ‘appellant’ and the ‘respondent herein’ will be referred to as ‘defendant’ and ‘plaintiff’ respectively.

3. Case of the Plaintiff in brief

3.1. The plaintiff owns lands admeasuring 1.67 Acres in S.Nos.60/11C, 60/12, 61/17C, 61/18, 61/19 and 61/20B at Old No.101, New No.55, Thandalam Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk. The defendant proposed a built-to-suit lease arrangement. After discussions, a registered Lease Deed was executed on 29.11.2007. It was agreed that the plaintiff as lessor would construct an industrial shed with approximately 30,000 sq.ft of factory space and 7,000 sq.ft of office space and hand it over to the defendant as lessee within six months from the date of execution of the lease deed. As per the agreement, necessary building construction permissions and licenses had to be obtained by the plaintiff and other permissions relating to running the industry had to be obtained by the defendant.

3.2. At a subsequent meeting, the said period had been altered and the date of commencement was changed to 01.04.2008 owing to the delay primarily attributable to the defendant, who changed the construction specifications frequently, and also owing to the delay on account of rainfall. The construction commenced and proceeded till the roof level under regular supervision of the defendant through its Managing Director and representatives. Further, the defendant was dependent on a Multi National French company for its business. The industrial shed had to be constructed according to the needs of the foreign company and therefore, the specifications kept changing. Though the plaintiff incurred additional expenses, the changes desired by the defendant’s side were carried out duly by the plaintiff.

3.3. The issue of construction of toilet for the office space generated a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant and this was resolved in a meeting held on 26.08.2008. It was resolved that the construction of the toilets for the office space would be carried out with no additional charges on the defendant. The other specifications regarding roof height and flooring level were agreed to be uniform. It was further agreed that the plans from the municipality should be obtained by the plaintiff and only after the defendant approves the drawings and plans, construction should be commenc