CS(COMM) 376/2020

Page 1 of 32

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment Reserved on : 06^th May, 2022

Judgment Delivered on : 25^th May, 2022

+

CS(COMM) 376/2020 & I.A. No.8044/2020 (u/O-XVA CPC), I.A.

No.12139/2020 (for modification), I.A. No.12216/2021 (u/O-

XXXVIII R-1 & 5 CPC), I.A. No.14659/2021 (for directions), I.A.

No.182/2022 (u/S 151 CPC)

MEHRA JEWEL PALACE PVT LTD.

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate

with

Ms.

Shaini

Bhardwaj,

Mr.Shaurya Rohit and Mr.Devesh

Makhija, Advocates.

versus

MINISO LIFE STYLE PVT. LTD. & ANR.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Pawan Upadhyay with Mr.

Rajesh Chhetri, Mr. Rajeev Chhetri

and

Ms.

Meenakshi

Rawat,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. No.12212/2021 (u/O-XIII-A(4) of CPC)

1.

The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under

Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as applicable to

commercial suits, seeking a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff for

a sum of Rs.3,83,09,444/- along with pendente lite and future interest.

2.

Notice in the present application was issued on 20^th September, 2021

and reply to the application on behalf of the defendant no.1 was filed on 27^th

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002023

CS(COMM) 376/2020

Page 2 of 32

November, 2021. Thereafter, plaintiff also filed rejoinder to the reply of the

defendant no.1 in December, 2021.

3.

Vide order dated 03^rd March, 2022, the submission of the parties has

been recorded that for deciding the issue of whether or not the defendants

are entitled to the benefit of the force majeure clause, oral evidence would

not be necessary.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4.

Brief facts culminating into filing of the present suit are as follows.

4.1

Plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing No.C-11, Connaught

Place, New Delhi–110001 consisting of the Ground Floor measuring about

2400 square feet and basement measuring about 400 square feet (demised

premises).

4.2

A tripartite Lease Deed dated 04^th January, 2018 (Lease Deed) was

entered into by the plaintiff, being the lessor, and the defendant no.1 along

with one Keikaku India Private Limited, being the lessees for running a

commercial business in the demised premises. The said lease deed was duly

registered. The term of the Lease Deed was for nine years running from 1^st

December, 2017 up to 30^th November, 2026 with monthly rent being

Rs.27,00,000/- for the period commencing from 30^th January, 2018 to 30^th

November, 2020. Along with the monthly payment of rent, the defendants

were also liable to pay the statutory tax, being the Goods and Service Tax

applicable on the monthly rent amount. The defendants had deposited a sum

of Rs.1,08,00,000/- with the plaintiff towards Interest Free Refundable

Security Deposit as per Clause 7 of the Lease Deed.

4.3

Subsequently, vide communications dated 10^th January, 2019 the

plaintiff was informed of Keikaku India Private Limited withdrawing from

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002023

CS(COMM) 376/2020

Page 3 of 32

the Lease Deed with effect from 01^st February, 2019. Thereafter, the

defendant no.2 was appointed as a new franchisee of the defendant no.1 and

agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed.

4.4

On 30^th March, 2020, the defendant no.1 sent an email to the plaintiff

informing the plaintiff of the closure of the demised premises on account of

the COVID-19 pandemic and requested the plaintiff to consider waiving off

its obligation to pay rent.

4.5

Thereafter, on 03^rd April, 2020, the defendant no.1 sent a notice of

suspension of ren