RFA No.751/2018 Page 1 of 33

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA No.751/2018

%

7^th September, 2018

SUNIL SOOD

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate

(M. No.9891363718).

versus

M/S SHRI KRISHNA BUILDERS & ORS.

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.36303/2018 (for condonation of delay)

1.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 11 days

in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA

No.751/2018

and

C.M.

Nos.36302/2018(stay)

&

36304/2018(exemption from filing copy of decree sheet)

2.

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit

RFA No.751/2018 Page 2 of 33

impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 16.4.2018 by which

trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance, injunction

etc filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

3.

The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff was a

tenant in first floor of the property no. K-23-A, Kalkaji, New Delhi

(hereinafter “suit property”) at a monthly rental of Rs.1,050/-. The

entire property belonged to the respondent no.3/defendant no.3, (now

deceased and represented through her legal heirs). Respondent

no.1/defendant no.1, M/s Shri Krishna Builders through the

respondent no.2/defendant no.2 entered into a Collaboration

Agreement dated 12.9.2005 with the respondent no.3/defendant no.3

for reconstructing the entire property. For this purpose, an MOU

dated

10.10.2005/Ex.PW1/2

was

entered

between

the

appellant/plaintiff, respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and the respondent

no.3/defendant no.3. Between the appellant/plaintiff and the

respondent no.1/defendant no.1 simultaneously an Agreement to Sell

of the same date was entered into with respect to the first floor of the

property which was to be constructed. The total price under the

Agreement to Sell was fixed at Rs.17 lacs of which a sum of Rs.1 lac

RFA No.751/2018 Page 3 of 33

was paid by the appellant/plaintiff and the balance amount of Rs. 16

lacs was payable within 15 days of completion of construction and at

the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed in favour of the

appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff pleaded that to enable

reconstruction, he had to shift from the tenanted premises and the

respondent no. 1/defendant no.1 agreed to provide alternative

accommodation on rent, the rent for which was to be paid by the

respondent no.1/defendant no.1. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff

shifted to the third floor of the property no.G-48, Kalkaji, New Delhi

at rent of Rs.7,000/- per month and for the said premises, rent was

paid by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 till the disputes arose. The

case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the respondent no.1/defendant

no.1 was to construct the first floor of two bedrooms, drawing/dining,

kitchen and two toilets as per the document Annexure-A to the

Agreement to Sell, and there was also attached a site plan to the same.

The appellant/plaintiff pleads that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1

and respondent no.2/defendant no.2 (partner of the respondent

no.1/defendant no.1 partnership firm) however failed to carry out

construction in terms of Annexure-A and that the construction made

RFA No.751/2018 Page 4 of 33

was inferior and sub-standard. The appellant/plaintiff pleaded that he

was to be given possession by October, 2006 which was not done and

instead in December, 2006 the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.