Delhi District Court
M/S Gopal Das Estates And Housing … vs Condor Air Services Pvt Ltd on 29 May, 2025
DLND010089342021
IN THE COURT OF MRS VINEETA GOYAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL-03),
PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.590/2021
CNR No.DLND010089342021
In the matter of :-
1 Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd.
2 Hoover Services Pvt. Ltd.
3 Ardee Housing Pvt. Ltd.
All having registered office at :-
Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 16th Floor,
28, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
Condor Air Services Pvt. Ltd.
Office Address at :-
5th Floor, Augusta Point,
Golf Course Road, Sector-53,
Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana,
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Ph.No.: 9810143936, 01244797518
(Aadhaar No. of Director Jasleen - 23458944 3365)
(DIN No. of Director Jasleen - 01293189)
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:12:34
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 1 / 32
Registered office at :-
118, New Delhi House,
27, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi - 110001. ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 13.12.2021
Date on which judgment pronounced : 29.05.2025
Appearance : Sh. Bimlendu Shekhar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff along
with Sh. Prem Gautam, Company Secretary on behalf
of plaintiffs.
Sh. Kamal Kishore and Sh. Shubham Singh,
Ld.Counsels for defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.14,33,560/- WITH
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 12% P.A.
AND
Counter Claim No.: 13/2022
In the matter of :
Condor Air Services Pvt. Ltd.
5th Floor, Augusta Point,
Golf Course Road, Sector-53,
Gurugram, Haryana- 122002,
Also registered office at :
118, New Delhi House,
27, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ....Counter Claimant / Defendant
Versus
1 Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd.
2 Hoover Services Pvt. Ltd.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:12:41
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 2 / 32
3 Ardee Housing Pvt. Ltd.
All having registered office at :-
Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 16th Floor,
28, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
Email : [email protected]
Ph : 9811713070 ....Non-Claimants / Plaintiffs.
COUNTER CLAIM FOR RECOVERY AND
DAMAGES FOR RS.15,38,184/-
Date of Institution : 28.04.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 29.05.2025
Appearance : Sh. Kamal Kishore and Sh. Shubham Singh,
Ld. Counsels for counter claimant.
Sh. Bimlendu Shekhar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff along
with Sh. Prem Gautam, Company Secretary on behalf
of non-claimants.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of
Rs.14,33,560/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand
Five Hundred and Sixty Only) along with pendente lite and future
interest @ 12% p.a. against the defendant. The defendant has filed
a counter claim for recovery of Rs. 15,38,184/- along with
pendente-lite and future interest against the plaintiff.
2 Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off suit as
well as counter claim filed by the parties. For the sake of
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:12:48
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 3 / 32
convenience, the defendant / counter-claimant has been referred as
defendant and plaintiff / non-counter claimant has been referred as
the plaintiff.
3 Brief facts as epitomized in the plaint are that the
plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 3 are private limited companies. The
plaintiff no.1 is engaged in its limited activity of leasing the
commercial space for the commercial purposes. The last rent
receivable by the plaintiff no.1 is Rs. 2,94,383/- including applied
tax from defendant. The plaintiff no.2, sister concern of plaintiff
no.1, is engaged in providing commercial services of power
backup and central air conditioning for the defendant and the best
charge of commercial service received by plaintiff no.2 is Rs.
78,294/- including tax application which was exclusively used by
defendant. The plaintiff no.3 is sister concern of plaintiff no.1,
engaged in providing the commercial services of common area
maintenance services to the defendant. The last charges for
commercial services received by the plaintiff no.3 is Rs. 22,585/-
including tax application which was exclusively used by the
defendant.
3.1 It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiffs have
authorized Sh. Virender Singh vide their Board Resolution dated
16.11.2021 to sign, verify and depose on behalf of plaintiffs and to
file the present suit against the defendant.
3.2 It is further averred that the plaintiff no.1 is the Lessor
Digitally signed
by VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:12:55 +0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 4 / 32
of the commercial property at the 12 th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan,
28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, admeasuring 2200 sq.
ft. (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises). The defendant was
inducted as a commercial tenant in the suit premises by virtue of a
registered lease deed dated 28.01.2019 (the Lease Deed) on a
monthly rent of Rs.2,72,580/- and the rent was payable from
01.01.2019 for a period of three years. The defendant also signed
Commercial Service Agreements with plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 in
respect of the services provided by each one of them and which
were exclusively used by the defendant for the suit premises.
3.3 It is then averred that defendant in violation of term of
registered lease and other commercial services agreements failed
to pay the rent amount and charges for services from April, 2020
till 04.12.2020 being an amount of Rs.14,33,560/- towards arrears
of rent and other services charges. The defendant paid the rent and
other service charges till March, 2020 but thereafter did not pay
the rent.
3.4 The plaintiffs allegedly sent bills for the month of April,
2020 through email dated 08.04.2020 thereby demanding rent
with request of sharing of UTR number and payment details.
Thereafter allegedly plaintiffs again sent an email dated
21.04.2020 for payment of monthly rent and service charges.
However, defendant sent an email dated 12.06.2020 with request
that Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Director of defendant company, wishes
to contact the plaintiff and another email was sent on 26.06.2020
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:13:02
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 5 / 32
requesting for waiver of rent for April and May, 2020 and the said
request was not accepted by the plaintiff.
3.5 As per the plaint, subsequently, Mr. Vikramjit Singh sent
an email dated 27.08.2020 with an attachment purported to be a
termination notice dated 01.04.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the
Termination notice). This email was replied by the plaintiff
through email dated 01.09.2020 informing defendant that no such
purported notice has ever been received by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff further requested to adopt the reasonable approach and
clear the outstanding dues. The defendant on the same day i.e.
01.09.2020 sent an email demanding the security deposits from
the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent another email dated 09.09.2020
requesting defendant to make payment of outstanding amount and
handover the vacant possession of the suit premises.
3.6 Thereafter the parties further communicated with emails
dated 14.09.2020, 21.09.2020, 11.11.2020, 17.11.2020,
04.12.2020 and on 04.12.2020 defendant removed movable goods
from the suit premises leaving behind 11 chairs unattended at the
main gate of the commercial building namely Gopal Das Bhawan
and left the key of the suit premises in front of the official of
plaintiff and therefore delivered the possession to the plaintiff on
04.12.2020 and thus defendant is liable for payment / services
charges till December, 2020.
3.7 The plaintiff vide email dated 08.12.2020 and speed
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:13:08
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 6 / 32
post demanded the arrear of rent, CAM charges, electricity till
04.12.2020 but despite receipt of the letter, defendant has not paid
any amount due to plaintiffs.
3.8 It is lastly averred that defendant is liable to pay amount
towards rent and charges for other services from April, 2020 to
December, 2020, which are as under: –
i) Rs.22,15,812/- towards rent for the specified period and
payable to plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no. 1 was having
security amount of Rs.16,35,480/- and after adjusting the
security amount, the net amount payable by the defendant to
the plaintiff no. 1 comes to Rs. 9,79,178/-. Similarly,
defendant is also liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,811/-
towards consumption of electricity for the period of March,
2020 to July, 2020 to the plaintiff no.1.
ii) Similarly, an amount of Rs.5,48,738/- towards air-
conditioning and power back up for the specified period
payable to plaintiff no.2. The plaintiff no.2 was having a
security amount of Rs.4,04,976/- and after adjusting the
security amount, the net amount payable by the defendant to
the plaintiff no.2 comes to Rs.2,42,464/-.
iii) Similarly, an amount of Rs.1,58,272/- towards
maintenance for the specified period and payable to plaintiff
no.3. The plaintiff no.3 was having a security amount of
Rs.1,16,820/- and after adjusting the security amount, the net
amount payable by the defendant to plaintiff no.3 comes to
Rs.69,941/-.
Digitally signed
by VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.05.29
17:13:14
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 7 / 32
3.9 It is further alleged that the defendant is also liable to
pay interest @ 12% p.a. and an amount of Rs.1,36,166/- is due
and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The total amount
payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs comes to Rs.14,33,560/-
which the defendant has failed to pay.
3.10 The cause of action for filing the present suit arose in
April, 2020, when the first default in payment of rent by
defendant took place. The suit premises situated at 28,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and the defendant was working
for gain at New Delhi, hence, this court has the jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present suit. The subject matter of the suit
arises, relates to recovery of rent and services charges from
immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. The
plaintiffs further averred that an application was also referred
before the concerned DSLSA, Patiala House Court, however,
despite issuance of notice, the defendant did not appear, due to
which matter was declared ‘Non-Starter’ as per Non-Starter
Report dated 15.11.2021.
3.11 In the prayer clause of the plaint, it is accordingly
prayed that a decree for sum of Rs.10,86,878/- be passed in favour
of plaintiff no.1 along with pendente lite and future interest till
realization @ 12% p.a. ; a decree for Rs.2,69,047/- be passed in
favour of plaintiff no.2 along with pendente lite and future interest
till realization @ 12% p.a. and a decree for a sum of Rs.77,635/-
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:13:20
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 8 / 32
be passed in favour of plaintiff no.3 along with pendente lite and
future interest till realization @ 12% p.a. Hence this suit for
recovery.
4 Pursuant to summons issued, the defendant appeared
and filed written statement making preliminary submissions that
the plaintiff no.1 and defendant were having a landlord – tenant
relationship since December, 2015 and the first lease deed was
executed on 30.12.2015 which was further renewed by Lease
Deed dated 28.01.2019 for further period of three years. In
addition to the Lease Deed, there are three separate agreements of
the defendant with plaintiff nos.2 and 3 for services. Along with
said Lease Deed, a separate Agreement dated 28.01.2019 was
entered between plaintiff no.2 company, a sister concern of
plaintiff no.1, and defendant for Central Air Conditioning and
another similar agreement dated 28.01.2019 was entered between
plaintiff no.2 and defendant for 100% power back-up and in
addition to these, a separate Agreement dated 28.01.2019 was
entered between plaintiff no.3 and defendant for maintenance
services.
4.1 It is then submitted that various securities laying with
each parties were that the plaintiff no.1 had six months’ rent of
Rs.16,35,480/- lying as security and the plaintiff no.2 had six
months of charges of Rs.4,04,976/- lying as security and similarly
plaintiff no.3 had six months of charges of Rs.1,16,820/- lying as
security. As per the Agreements, the defendant had deposited six
Digitally signed
by VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.05.29
17:13:35
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 9 / 32
months advance rents and charges as security to the plaintiffs,
total of which comes out to be Rs.21,57,276/-.
4.2 The Lease Agreement had clause 6 for termination of
the Agreement and as such, the Lease Deed can be terminated in
two cases:
i) Defendant gives notice of two months or rent in lieu
of the same thereof ;
ii) The rent is not paid by the tenant for two consecutive
months.
4.3 It is further submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic,
the business of the defendant company suffered badly as almost
all the international passenger flights were suspended as per the
order of Govt. of India. It was a major setback for defendant
company as passenger flight business was its major source of
revenue as they were the GSA of passenger business of China
Southern Airlines. The defendant made requests to the plaintiffs
for reducing the rent in such circumstances but the request of the
defendant was kept pending and, in such circumstances, the
defendant was compelled for vacating the suit premises as its
major source of income was closed and it tried to communicate its
decision to the plaintiffs but did not get any response from their
side. Finally, defendant gave plaintiffs two months advance
notice for the termination of the Lease Agreement and vacated the
office space through registered AD dated 01.04.2020 and asked
them for refund equivalent to four months rent after adjusting two
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:13:42
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 10 / 32
months rent from the amount of security deposit paid by it to the
plaintiffs which was equivalent to six months rent.
4.4 The office of the defendant was closed and no services
were being used by the defendant during the said period. After
the period of two months, defendant shifted / vacated its office
from suit premises to the address at 5 th Floor, Augusta Point, Golf
Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, and through
telephonic conversations, defendant made requests to the plaintiffs
to take the keys / possession of the suit premises and refund the
security amount after adjusting two months rent but no
satisfactory response received from their side and the plaintiffs
were not taking the possession of the suit premises. However, to
shock and surprise of the defendant, the plaintiffs refused to
refund four months security by falsely claiming that they did not
receive any termination notice from defendant.
4.5 On 27.08.2020, Mr. Vikramjit Singh Ahluwalia,
Managing Director of defendant, sent an email to the plaintiffs
stating that it made all attempts to give possession of the suit
premises and was unable to do so because of the inaction at the
part of the plaintiffs. The termination notice was again brought to
the notice of the plaintiffs. On 01.09.2020, plaintiffs sent an email
to the defendant stating that they have not received the
termination notice dated 01.04.2020 and the lease will expire only
on 27.10.2020. In reply to the email dated 01.09.2020 of the
plaintiffs, an email dated 01.09.2020 was sent by the defendant,
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:13:49
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 11 / 32
through its managing Director, he conveyed his shock from the
response of the plaintiffs and again requested to take the
possession and refund the adjusted security amount.
4.6 Thereafter, through telephonic conversation defendant
was requested by the plaintiffs to show receipt / AD and
accordingly, Mr. Santosh Joshi, office boy of defendant, went to
the office of plaintiffs on 03.09.2020 on the 16th Floor of the same
building to show them the receipt of registered AD and it is
submitted that their office personnel kept the said receipt with
them to show the same to their management and to check with
their guards as to who had received the letter when it came and
told Mr. Joshi to collect back the same after few days but the same
was never returned to defendant.
4.7 Thereafter again the plaintiffs sent an email dated
09.01.2020 making false claims and averments. It is further
submitted that the office of the defendant was even otherwise
closed from 22.03.2020 and had shifted to Gurugram and there
was no reason for it to retain the possession of the suit premises
and as such the possession was being offered by the defendant.
An email dated 14.09.2020 was sent by the defendant wherein it
was conveyed to the plaintiffs that they never came forward to
take possession of the suit premises. When the plaintiffs were not
taking the possession of the suit premises even after repeated
requests of the defendant, the defendant finally dropped the keys
of the suit premises on 04.12.2020 at the office of the plaintiffs.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:13:56
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 12 / 32
Thereafter the plaintiffs issued a false and frivolous legal notice
dated 08.12.2020 through their advocate against the defendant
which was replied by the defendant vide email dated 22.01.2021
sent by its Managing Director. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have
dishonestly misappropriated the security amount deposited by the
defendant and that they were entrusted with the security money
and dishonestly misappropriated it for their own use. The
plaintiffs have deceived the defendant fraudulently and
dishonestly inducing it to deliver the security amount causing
harm to the defendant. It is further submitted that a criminal
complaint dated 14.02.2022 bearing no.81650022200098 has
already been lodged against the plaintiffs at the behest of the
defendant with Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
4.8 In the aforesaid, written statement, while giving para-
wise reply denied to the contentions of the plaintiff and prayed
that the suit be dismissed.
5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the
plaintiffs reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denied
the contents of the written statement. The plaintiffs also submitted
that the interest free security has already been exhausted by
defendant and is liable to pay for further rent and agreed service
charges till 04.12.2020 and for this purpose, the defendant had
been given a proposal with detail calculation. The entire interest
free security deposits with all plaintiffs has already been
exhausted by the defendant. It is further submitted that the
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:01
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 13 / 32
request for waiver of rent for the months of April and May, 2020
was not accepted by the plaintiffs as the defendant was bound by
the agreement and the defendant was not showing any bona fide
intention to pay the due amount and the same happened in the
mediation also. The defendant was adamant for not settling the
dispute which the defendant was liable to pay. It is next submitted
that the plaintiff had never came to the knowledge of any such
purported or manufactured notice dated 01.04.2020 till
26.08.2020 and this manufactured notice dated 01.04.2020 was
attached by the defendant for the first time in its email dated
27.08.2020. The defendant has even neither produced any valid
receipt of sending the letter dated 01.04.2020 nor has shown its
authenticity. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs were always
operational throughout the period as there were so many
multinational companies, banks, CIPLA medicine company, etc.
were operational in the building and the defendant was receiving
the regular services to its suit premises and the office of the
defendant was functional. The defendant had occupied the
premises till 04.12.2020. It is further submitted that the plaintiff
did not receive notice dated 01.04.2020 and it was firstly received
on 27.08.2020 by way of email under the attachment and the
defendant wanted to escape from its liability and that is why
created such forged and fabricated document dated 01.04.2020.
The defendant never had intention to hand over the possession
rather intended to continue to retain the possession. It is further
submitted that the defendant was keeping its office furniture and
assets and the defendant did not handover the key of the suit
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:08
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 14 / 32
premises to the plaintiffs and the key of the premises was handed
over on 04.12.2020 after removing the chairs by the defendant.
6. A counterclaim was filed by the defendant
predominantly taking the contentions raised in the Written
Statement above which inter alia includes that the plaintiff/
landlord was given notice of termination on 01.04.2020, therefore
from the security deposit lying with the plaintiff, two months rent/
charges were to be deducted and balance be refunded. It is
submitted that the defendant did not pay the rent after March,
2020 as on 01.04.2020, it gave notice for termination of lease and
asked to adjust two months’ rent from the security. It is further
submitted that no amount is due to the plaintiffs from the
defendant and in fact the plaintiffs are liable to refund the security
amount of four months along with 18% interest. On these
grounds, a prayer was made that the suit of the plaintiff be
dismissed with cost and in the counter claim the following was
prayed:-
a) A decree for a sum of Rs.10,90,320/- be passed in favour of
counter claimant and against plaintiff no.1 with pendente
lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a.
b) A decree for a sum of Rs.2,69,984/- be passed in favour of
defendant / counter claimant and against plaintiff no.2 with
pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a.
c) A decree for a sum of Rs.77,880/- be passed in favour of
defendant / counter claimant and against plaintiff no.3 with
pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:14
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 15 / 32
d) A decree of Rs.1,00,000/- be passed as damages in favour
of defendant / counter claimant and against all the plaintiffs
with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12%
p.a.
7. It is matter of record that the plaintiff filed reply/ written
statement to the counter claim along with the statement of truth
etc. The defendant also filed the rejoinder and then issues were
framed.
8. For the sake of convenience, the issues of the main suit
and the counter-claim are reproduced hereunder:-
Main Suit bearing CS (COMM) 590/21
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of
Rs.14,33,560/-, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate
and from which period ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff had received a mail from defendant in
August, 2020 confirming their notice of termination and offer to
take possession ? OPD
4. Relief.
In counter claim 13/22
1. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter
claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,90,320/- from respondent
no.1, as prayed for ? OPCC
2. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter
claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,69,984/- from respondentDigitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:23
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 16 / 32
no.2, as prayed for ? OPCC
3. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter
claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.77,880/- from respondent
no.3, as prayed for ? OPCC
4. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter
claimant is entitled for damages of a sum of Rs.1.0 Lakh against
the respondents, as prayed for ? OPCC
5. Whether the counter claims are barred by law in view of
Order 8 rule 6A and Order VII Rule 6B CPC? OPR
6. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to interest, if so, at
what rate and for which period? OPCC
7. Relief.
9. Thereafter matter was fixed for evidence of the
plaintiff. The parties to the suit and the counter-claim lead
evidence by tendering documents. The plaintiff examined
Sh.Varinder Singh Yadav as PW-1 who was cross examined and
the evidence was closed. The defendant examined Ms. Jasleen
Ahluwalia DW-1 and Sh. Santosh Joshi as DW-2.
10 Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant has
addressed arguments.
11 I have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff and gone through the record. My issue-wise findings
are as under :-
Issue no.1 and 3 in Main Suit bearing no. CS (Comm)-590/21 and
Issue no.1, 2 and 3 in Counter Claim bearing no. 13/2022:
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:31
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 17 / 32
12 Both these issues are taken up together for discussion
being interlinked. The plaintiff to establish its case, plaintiff has
examined its Accounts Officer Sh. Virender Singh Yadav as PW-1,
who tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PW-1/A and
proved following documents :-
Resolution of Board of Directors _ Ex.PW-1/1
Notice sent through mail u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC – Ex.PW-1/2
Bank statement – Mark PW-1/3
Certified copy of lease deed – Ex.PW-1/4
Copy of agreements of power back up and central air
conditioning – Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6 respectively.
Bank statement showing the payment of Rs.78294 – Mark
PW-1/8
Maintenance agreement – Ex.PW-1/9
Statement showing the payment of Rs.78924 – Mark PW-1/10
Email dated 08.04.2020 – Ex.PW-1/11
Email dated 21.04.2020 – Ex.PW-1/12
Email dated 12.06.2020 – Ex.PW-1/13
Email dated 26.06.2020 – Ex.PW-1/14
Email dated 27.08.2020 with attachment with purported
termination notice dated 01.04.2020 – Ex.PW-1/15 (colly)
Emails dated 01.02.2020 at 2:10 PM, 01.09.2020 at 12:57 PM
– Ex.Pw-1/16 and Ex.PW-1/17 respectively.
Mail dated 09.09.2020 – Ex.PW-1/18
Mail dated 14.09.2020, 21.09.2020, 11.11.2020, 17.11.2020 –
Ex.PW-1/19, Ex.PW-1/20, Ex.PW-1/21 and Ex.PW-1/22
respectively.
Mail dated 04.11.2020 – Ex.PW-1/23
Mail dated 08.12.2020 – Ex.PW-1/24
Letter dated 18.02.2020 qua proposal to settle the dispute –
Ex.PW-1/25
Certificate u/s. 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.PW-1/26
Non-Starter Report - Ex.PW-1/27.
13 On the contrary, defendant has examined Ms. Jasleen
Alhuwalia as DW-1, who has tendered his affidavit by way of
evidence as Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon following documents :
Board Resolution dated 27.01.2022 – Ex.DW-1/1
Digitally signed
by VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.05.29
17:14:38
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 18 / 32
Lease deed dated 28.01.2019 – Ex.DW-1/2 (Ex.PW-1/4)
Agreement dated 28.01.2019 – Ex.DW-1/3 (Ex.PW-1/5)
Agreement dated 28.01.2019 – Ex.DW-1/4 (Ex. PW-1/6)
Agreement dated 28.01.2019 – Ex.DW-1/5 (Ex.PW-1/9)
Termination Letter / Notice dated 01.04.2020 – Ex.DW-1/6
Email dated 21.04.2020 – Ex.DW-1/7 (Ex.PW-1/12)
Email dated 12.06.2020 & 26.06.2020-Ex.DW-1/8
(Ex.PW-1/13 and Ex.PW-1/14).
Email dated 27.08.2020 – Ex.DW-1/9 (Ex.PW-1/15)
Email dated 01.09.2020 – Ex.DW-1/10 (Ex.PW-1/16)
Email dated 01.09.2020 – Ex.DW-1/11 (Ex.PW-1/17)
Email dated 09.09.2020 – Ex.DW-1/12 Ex.PW-1/18)
Email dated 14.09.2020 – Ex.DW-1/13 (Ex.PW-1/19)
Reply dated 22.01.2021 – Ex.DW-1/14
Criminal Complaint dated 14.02.2022 – Ex.DW-1/1514 The defendant has also examined Sh. Santosh Kumar
Joshi as DW-2, who deposed that he had been working as office
boy in World Connect Pvt. Ltd. for the last 17 years, which is a
sister concern of Condor Air Services Pvt. Ltd. He then deposed
that he had been working in both the company as a office boy. He
further deposed that their office regularly received the internal
post / Dak from the sister concern office at Gurgaon and that he
used to deliver the post / Dak to the Gopaldas / plaintiff office
regularly at 16th Floor. He further clarified that he had given the
post / dak to the madam sitting at the reception of the 16 th Floor of
the plaintiff office without taking any receipt any signature.
15 At the outset, it may be seen that the documents
tendered by both the parties are broadly not disputed except the
Notice of Termination dated 01.04.2020 Ex.DW-1/6 allegedly sent
by the defendant to the plaintiff giving two months’ notice of
vacation.
16 The first part of the dispute between the parties
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:44
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 19 / 32
erupted on the date when the notice of termination of lease
allegedly was served by the defendant upon the plaintiff. The
Lease deed (Ex.PW-1/4 and Ex.DW-1/2) as per clause 6 provides
that the tenant can do the same by giving a notice of two months
in advance or two months rent in lieu thereof. The aforesaid Lease
agreement does not provide for procedure/ method of service of
the notice.
17 Though Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 comes into play only if the duration is not provided in the
lease agreement but its provision in sub-clause 4 is useful: –
“(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed
by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to
the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or
delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or
servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not
practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.”
18 In the instant case, the defendant – tenant intends to
take benefit of the notice of termination dated 01.04.2020
(Ex.DW-1/6) therefore, the burden is upon him to prove that the
said notice was served on 01.04.2020. It is claimed on behalf of
the defendant that the aforesaid notice was sent through
Registered post/AD but while the defendant was conversing with
the plaintiff on the issue through telephonic conversation then the
defendant was requested by the plaintiffs to show receipt / AD.
Accordingly, on 03.09.2020, Mr. Santosh Joshi, office boy of
defendant, went to the office of plaintiffs on the 16th Floor of the
same building to show them the receipt of registered AD. It is
claim of the defendant that their office personnel kept the said
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:50
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 20 / 32
receipt with them to show the same to their management and to
check with their guards as to who had received the letter when it
came and told Mr. Joshi to collect back the same after few days
but the same was never returned to defendant.
19 Under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
the service of a letter is presumed to be effective if sent to the
correct address. Once a letter is properly dispatched by registered
post, the burden shifts to the party disputing the delivery to
provide contrary proof. (Jain Developers & Others Versus Raja R.
Chhabria and others, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 121, Para 29). In the
present case, the defendant has failed to provide the proof of
sending of the letter. It is unbelievable that even if it is accepted
that once in September 2020, the plaintiff has not returned the
original documents of letter sent through AD the defendant would
not have any copy or could not pull it from the postal authority.
The unsubstantiated contention that a police complaint was lodged
in February 2021 Ex.DW-1/5 would not help. Similarly, the
deposition of Sh. Santosh Kumar Joshi DW-2 cannot prove that
the Notice of Termination of the Lease was served upon the
plaintiff on 01.04.2020. It is also pertinent to mention that there
were communications by the defendant to the plaintiff on e-mail
dated 21.04.2020 (Ex.PW-1/12 and Ex. DW1/7), dated 12.06.2020
and 26.06.2020 (Ex.PW-1/13 & Ex. PW-1/14 and Ex. DW1/8) but
in none of these e-mails the defendant even mentioned about the
Notice of Termination of the Lease. These e-mails were only
about reduction of the rent due to Covid-19 pandemic. It is
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:14:56
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 21 / 32
surprising by the end of month of June 2020, as per the case of the
defendant the lease notice period was over then why these
communications did not contain even a whisper of vacation of the
demised premises. The defendant has failed to prove the service of
notice of termination as on 01.04.2020.
20 It is pertinent to mention that the alleged notice of
termination dated 01.04.2020 (Ex.DW-1/6) was again sent by the
defendant to the plaintiff as an attachment in the e-mail dated
27.08.2020 (Ex. PW-1/5 and DW-1/9). This service is not
disputed through e-mail and would be treated as valid notice of
termination served on 27.08.2020. The above e-mail was
responded by the plaintiff on 01.09.2020 (Ex. PW-1/ and
DW-1/9).
21 In consideration of the facts above, by virtue of
serving Notice of termination through e-mail dated 28.08.2020
and duly acknowledged by the plaintiff on 01.09.2020, the months
of September and October 2020 were the two months’ notice
period as provided in the lease deed and thus the defendant has
duly notified its intention to vacate the demised premises on
30.10.2020.
22 Now, the part two of the controversy between the
parties revolves around the fact that the plaintiffs claim that the
demised premises was vacated on 04.12.2020 when the keys were
handed over to the staff at the premises. The defendant claims that
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:02
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 22 / 32
much prior (after two months from the April 2020), it has shifted
its premises to 5th Floor, Augusta point, Golf Course Road, Sector
53, Gurgaon. Now the question arises after serving notice of
termination vide e-mail dated 27.08.2020 what transpired between
the parties for taking over the possession of the demised premises.
For this purpose, reference can be made to email dated 14.09.2020
(Ex. PW-1/19) where Ms. Jasleen Ahluwalia has sent e-mail to the
plaintiff where in the concluding paragraph it is offered that
handover and settlement may be done simultaneously. This e-mail
was responded by the plaintiff vide e-mail dated 21.09.2020 (Ex. PW-1/20)
as under:-
“Received your email of 14 September 2020 and fail to
understand that despite repeatedly informing you that
notice dated 01.04.2020 has not been received by us, you
are unnecessarily raising the same in every communication,
This is the last communication we are addressing to you
and are making clear that you are liable for the payment of
rent and other charges till the expiry of notice period or
handing over possession as per terms of lease deed
whichever is later. Further reference being made by you to
the terms of the clause as referred to in the email we may
inform you that the option of terminating the lease is with
us but that does not give any right to you to waive off the
notice period.
It is therefore is in your interest to clear all the dues
otherwise we have no options except to approach the court
of law for recovery and for other losses which we are
incurring on account of non-payment of rents and other
charges.
Regards”
23 From the above, it is clear that the plaintiff has
insisted upon clearance of all the dues before any possession
could be taken. The defendant /tenant again offered amicable
settlement and possession vide e-mail dated 11.11.2020 (Ex.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:08
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 23 / 32
PW-1/21).
“With the festive season around we would want to
amicably resolve the pending issue of our already vacated
office an 12th floor in Gopal Dass Bhawan taken on lease
from Ardee.
We had send the 2 month notice period of vacating to
Ardee effective Ist April, 2020 but sadly Ardee group has
not been accepting it for whatever reasons best known to
themselves.
We have had a long healthy relationship with your
organization for more than 8 years and would like it to end
on the same note amicably. We have left our office totally
furnished including chairs, tables etc thus any new tenent
of yours does not need to spend to renovate.
As requested earlier since June, 2020 beginning that kindly
settle our dues and take the vacant procession of the office
from us, Ardee has not been willing to accept the same. We
again offer to handover the keys of the office before Diwali
and have this issue amicably resolved and a fair settlement
be reached between both our organisations.
We have tried several times to contact Ms. Shibani Verma,
Director of Ardee and she has not been available for a call
to discuss this matter.
Looking forward to a positive response from your end
Kind Regards”
The plaintiff vide e-mail dated 17.11.2020 (Ex.
PW-1/22) reiterated position of clearance of dues and deemed
possession.
“Your email dated 11.11.2020 is contrary to all earlier mail
and oral telephonic discussions. We have repeatedlyDigitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:14
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 24 / 32
informed you that so called purported notice dated
01.04.2020 has not been received by us. We have only
received your notice dated 27.08.2020. Therefore it cannot
be called notice required to be given in terms of lease. As
regards your contention, that you have vacated the office,
we draw your attention to various emails sent by us
wherein we have clearly informed you that, till actual
vacant possession is handed over, the possession is, deemed
to be with you, holding you liable for payment of
rent/damages.
To us it appears that you are not serious in resolving the
issues and are increasing your liabilities for payments and
other charges.
We therefore once again request you to handover keys and
vacant possessión to us.
The company is not interested in any of the fittings and
fixture and wants vacant possession.
On receipt of the keys and vacant physical possession final
accounting will be prepared and you can discuss with Mr.
Chand Bhatt thereafter.”
24 In the background above, it is to be noted that after
determination of the tenancy after serving of notice of termination
as on 27.08.2020, in accordance with the Lease deed, and read
with Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), the
lessee-defendant was duty bound to keep the suit property in good
condition and on determination of the lease bound to put the
lessor-plaintiffs into possession of the property.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:20
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 25 / 32
25 It is also well settled that the landlord cannot refuse
to take over the possession of the suit property upon determination
of lease. In the event of refusal of landlord to take possession
offered by the tenant, the possession shall be deemed to have been
delivered to the landlord and the tenant shall not be liable to pay
the rent thereafter. This issue has been elaborately considered by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as H.S. Bedi v.
National Highway Authority of India, vide judgment dated
14.05.20145 reported as 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9524, (2015) 220
DLT 179. Hon’ble Court in this case gave consideration to the
cases A.C. Raman v. Muthavally Seydali‘s Son Valiyakath
Kaithakkal Kunhi Bara Haji, AIR 1953 Madras 996, Raja Laxman
Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Rajasthan 44, Onida
Finance Limited v. Malini Khanna, 2002 (3) AD (Delhi) 231,
Uberoisons (Machines) Ltd. v. Samtel Color Ltd. , 2003 (69) DRJ
523, Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Society v. Harbans Lal
Gupta, 2009 (107) DRJ 418 (DB), Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi v.
Metso Minerals (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 114 DRJ 653,
Kamal Mangla v. Tata Finance Ltd., 2011 ILR 3 Delhi 682,
Associated Journal Limited v. ICRA Ltd., MANU/DE/0851/2012
and eventually summarized the jurisprudence in paragraph 10 of
the judgment as under:-
“10. Summary of Principles of law:
From the analysis of the above decisions and the provisions
with which we are concerned, the following principles
emerge:-
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:27
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 26 / 32
10.1. Determination of lease – Section 111 of the Transfer
of Property Act provides various modes of determination of
lease such as determination by efflux of time [Section
111(a)]; expiry of the period of notice of termination
[Section 111(h)]; express surrender [Section 111(e)] and
implied surrender [section 111(f)].
10.2. Obligations of the landlord and the tenant upon
determination of lease – The tenant is bound to handover
the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises
to the landlord upon determination of lease [under Section
108(q)].
10.3. Duty of tenant to restore the tenanted premises -The
tenant is bound to restore the tenanted premises in the same
condition in which it was taken.[Section 108(B)(m].
10.4. Remedy of landlord in the event of non-restoration by
the tenant – In the event of non-restoration of the tenanted
premises to their original condition, the remedy of the
landlord is to adjust the damages in the security deposit or
sue the tenant for damages after taking over of the
possession.
10.5. Landlord cannot refuse to take over the possession
upon determination of lease and offer of possession by the
tenant – The landlord, upon determination lease and offer of
possession by the tenant, cannot refuse to take over the
possession on the ground that the property has been
damaged or not restored to its original condition.
10.6. Consequences of the landlord refusing to take the
possession offered by the tenant – In the event of refusal of
the landlord to take the possession offered by the tenant,
the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to
the landlord and the tenant shall not be liable to pay theDigitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:33
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 27 / 32
rent thereafter.
10.7. Consequences of the tenant refusing to handover the
possession – If the landlord is ready to accept the
possession but the tenant refuses/fails to handover the
possession, the liability of the tenant to pay the rent shall
continue till the handing over of the possession.
10.8. Remedy of tenant in case of non-refund of security
deposit by the landlord – The tenant cannot refuse to hand
over the possession till the security deposit is refunded. In
the event of non- refund of security deposit by the landlord,
the remedy of the tenant is to sue the landlord for refund of
security deposit after handing over the possession.
26 In the instant case, the defendant/ tenant as held
above was obliged to hand over the possession by 31.10.2020 for
which intention was expressed and thereafter in case the plaintiff/
landlord has not facilitated taking over of the possession under
any circumstances would not be entitled to rent for the period.
27 The witness of the plaintiff, Sh. Virender Singh
Yadav appearing as PW-1 when cross examined on 29.03.2023, in
response to Question no.9 deposed that:- There is no specific
procedure /protocol for handing over the possession mentioned by
the plaintiff company (Vol. after paying the dues we have issued
the NOC to the lessee and the maintenance staff use to take
possess after the NOC have been given to them. I have not placed
any documents mentioning the abovesaid procedure.
28 The deposition above makes it clear that the landlord/
Digitally signed
by VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.05.29
17:15:38
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 28 / 32
plaintiff provided no procedure and was not willing to take the
possession till NOC is given.
29 This witness in cross examination dated 17.04.2023
further deposed that it is correct that we have not produce any
document to proof that on 04.12.2020 defendant had taken any
article from the property in question.
30 It transpires from the above facts that the plaintiff/
landlord was responsible for delay in taking over the keys till
04.12.2020 whereas the defendant/ tenant was willing to amicably
settle and handover the possession. Thus, the plaintiff companies
are not entitled to claim any rent and service charges for the
period 31.10.2020 to 04.12.2020 (34 days).
31 In consideration of the above, the rent and other
charges for six months (April to September 2020) are adjustable
from the security deposits. The defendant is liable to pay rent and
other charges only for the month of October 2020. Thus, plaintiff
no.1 is entitled to Rs. 2,72,580/- for the month of October, 2020
from the defendant (Ex.PW-1/4). The plaintiff no.2 is entitled for
Rs. 67,496/- from the defendant towards power back up for
central air conditioning and Light Load and Supply of Power for
Central Air Conditioning Plant and Central Air Conditioning
Agreement (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6). The plaintiff no.3 is
entitled to Rs. 19,470/- from the defendant in terms of Agreement
Ex.PW-1/19.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:44
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 29 / 32
32 In view of foregoing reasons, Issue nos.1 and 3 in
Main Suit bearing no. CS (Comm)-590/21 are decided in favour
of plaintiffs. In so far as Issue nos.1, 2 and 3 in Counter Claim suit
bearing no. 13/2022 are decided against the defendant.
Issue no.2 in Main Suit
33 Since issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs are also entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the
date of institution of the suit till its realization. This issue is
accordingly decided in favour of plaintiffs.
Issue nos.4 and 6 of Counter Claim
34. The defendant has claimed loss of Rs. 1 lakhs from
the plaintiff for harassment. No evidence has been adduced by the
defendant to show any harassment on account of the conduct of
the plaintiffs. Rather as discussed above, the plaintiffs are entitled
for one month rent and another charges from the defendant.
Therefore, issue no.4 is decided against the defendant. Similarly,
since the counter claims are decided against the defendant, the
defendant is not entitled to the interest as prayed for. Accordingly,
this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 5 Counter Claim
35. Both plaintiffs and defendant did not press for this
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:51
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 30 / 32
issue at this stage of final arguments, hence, decided being not
pressed for.
Relief :
36 In summation, the suit of the plaintiffs is partly
decreed as follows:-
i). Plaintiff no.1 is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,72,580/-
along with pendente-lite and future simple interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization, from
the defendant.
ii) The plaintiff no.2 is entitled for Rs. 67,496/- along with
pendente-lite and future simple interest @ 12% per annum from
the date of institution of suit till its realization, from the
defendant.
iii) The plaintiff no.3 is entitled to Rs. 19,470/- along with
pendente-lite and future simple interest @ 12% per annum from
the date of institution of suit till its realization, from the
defendant.
iv) In so far as counter claim filed on behalf of counter claimant is
concerned, same stands dismissed for the findings given above.
37 Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:57
+0530CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 31 / 32
38 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
39. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed
by VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:16:03 +0530Pronounced in the open Court (VINEETA GOYAL)
on this 29th May, 2025 District Judge (Commercial-03)
Patiala House Court : New DelhiCS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 32 / 32