The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the possession of the demised premises is deemed to have been delivered to the petitioner when the respondents offered the keys, regardless of the petitioner's refusal to accept them. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the principle of finality of judgment and the need to prevent unscrupulous litigants from taking undue advantage through the legal process.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Special Commercial Court at Gurugram vide which the executing Court has decided points No.1, 2 and 4 holding that the constructive possession of the demised premises was handed over to the petitioner on 14.11.2011/21.11.2011.

2. Petitioner claimed that the alleged handing over of the possession was merely symbolic in nature and the same was in complete violation of the Arbitration award dated 07.09.2011. The possession in terms of the award has not been handed over to the petitioner till date and as such, the petitioner is entitled to receive rent till date in terms of the Arbitration award. The alleged handing over of the possession without removing fit-outs as per terms of the award is no possession in the eyes of law. Respondents have kept the claim qua fit-outs alive, rendering the property of no use to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner claimed interest @ 18% per annum as per award till actual realisation of the amount.

3. Few facts are relevant to be noticed. Petitioner purchased a plot for a Mall in Panchkula in an auction conducted by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in the month of May, 2004. In November, 2006, the respondents approached the petitioner for opening a store in the said Mall. An agreement was executed between the parties on 24.01.2007 for leasing out 19,200 sq. ft. of floor space on ground, first and second floor of the Mall. The rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 160/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs. 30,72,000/- per month. In addition to the aforesaid, common area maintenance charges were also payable by the respondents. As per the petitioner, the possession of the demised premises was handed over to the respondents on 10.02.2007 and rent free period of three months i.e. from 11.02.2007 to 10.05.2007 was also given to the respondents for carrying out the fit-outs works in the premises. Respondents gave interest free/refundable security deposit of Rs. 1,84,32,000/- to the petitioner. The rent was to start from the date of giving a copy of completion certificate by the petitioner to the respondents after obtaining the same from HUDA. Respondents also requested the petitioner for leasing out an additional area of 1132 sq. ft. on ground, first and second floor. In view of above, an addendum agreement was also executed between the parties on 15.05.2007 and accordingly, possession of additional area was also handed over to the respondents on 15.05.2007 itself. The rate of rent for the additional area was fixed at Rs. 320/- sq. ft. i.e. Rs. 3,62,240/- per month. Respondents deposited an amount of Rs. 21,73,440/- as interest free security deposit to the petitioner. A dispute arose between the parties. Petitioner alleged that the respondents have delayed in carrying out fit-outs work and necessary changes could not be incorporated by them within the time frame. Therefore, petitioner claimed recovery of rent along with service tax, property tax, recovery of common area maintenance charges, minimum electricity charges for load reserved for Reliance Retail Ltd. and cost of arbitration etc.

4. Respondents also set up a counter claim by refuting the allegations of the petitioner on the ground that the agreement dated 24.01.2007 is not a valid lease agreement. Respondents besides taking plea of the agreement being not registered document, also claimed for refund of security deposit of Rs. 1,84,32,000/- and Rs. 21,73,440/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. Respondents contested that the construction work of the said Mall was delayed by the petitioner as the same was stopped by Haryana Pollution Control Board on 22.06.2007. However, the order was quashed by the High Court on 02.08.2007 and the work remained stopped from 22.06.2007 to 02.08.2007. Thereafter, the work was delayed on account of dis-connection of electricity and water supply of the Mal