Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010089922019
Presented on 27082019
Registered on 17092019
Decided on 26092022
Duration Yrs. M. Days
03 00 30
CNR No. MHCC010089922019
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.917 OF 2019
1. Vijay Basappa Beleri
Residing at 503 B Wing
Satyam Springs, BKSD Road,
Deonar, Govandi (E),
Mumbai – 400 088.
2. Rajani Vijay Beleri
Residing at 503 B Wing,
Satyam Springs, BKSD Road,
Deonar, Govandi (E)
Mumbai – 400 088. ...Plaintiffs.
V/s.
M/s. Anupama Varma
C2, Ravi Darshan, Shirly Rajan Road,
off Carter Road,
Bandra (W),
Mumbai – 400 050. ...Defendant.
M
-- 1 of 6 --
Sum. Suit 917 of 2019 .. J/2 .. Judgment
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Ms. Megha Jani for plaintiffs.
None present for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 26th September, 2022
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
1. The present Summary suit is filed by the plaintiffs against
the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,08,780/ alongwith interest
at the rate of 24% per annum from 13.04.2019 to 27.05.2019
aggregating to Rs.11,572/.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The plaintiffs and defendant entered into the Leave and
License agreement dated 29.05.2017 and registered the same in the
office of SubRegistrar. The said Leave and Licensed agreement was for
24 months. It was agreed between plaintiffs and defendant that the
amount of Rs.5,00,000/ shall be paid towards the security deposit and
monthly compensation was to be paid at the rate of Rs.60,000/ per
month. It was also agreed that on vacating the licensed premises, the
defendant shall refund the security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/. On
14.03.2019 the plaintiffs issued the notice intending to terminate the
licensed premises. The said notice was received to the defendant on
13.04.2019. the plaintiffs handed over the licensed premises to the
defendant. The defendant accepted the keys through her agent. The
defendant assured the plaintiffs to refund the security deposit but the
defendant failed to repay the same. The plaintiffs issued notice on
-- 2 of 6 --
Sum. Suit 917 of 2019 .. J/3 .. Judgment
24.04.2019, the defendant refused to refund the security deposit due
under the Leave and License Agreement. The defendant replied the
notice of plaintiffs and stated that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ has been
retained towards the damages. The defendant paid the sum of
Rs.4,00,000/ out of Rs.5,00,000/. The retaintion of balance amount
of Rs.1,00,000/ is unjustified and arbitrary and therefore, the plaintiffs
filed the present suit seeking the refund of Rs.1,00,000/ alongwith
interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiffs also sought
interest of Rs.11,572/ on Rs.4,00,000/ for the period from 13.04.2019
to 27.05.2019. The plaintiffs prayed to decree the suit.
3. The defendant was duly served but she failed to appear and
therefore, suit was proceeded Exparte against her as per the order
dated 30.01.2020.
4. The plaintiffs in support of her contention filed the claim
affidavit of plaintiff No.1 vide Exh.6 and compilation of documents vide
Exh.7. The documents filed by the plaintiffs shows that the Leave and
License Agreement dated 29.05.2017 was executed between the
plaintiffs and defendant. The agreement was valid up to 31.05.2019,
the plaintiffs vacated the suit premises on 13.04.2019. The plaintiff has
filed the copy of the Leave and License Agreement vide Exh.9, the
plaintiffs had also filed the print outs of Email exchanged between the
parties vide Exh.10 alongwith Certificate under Section 65 B of the
Indian Evidence Act., the plaintiff issued notice dated 22.04.2019 to the
defendant, the plaintiff had also filed the reply of notice given by the
defendant alongwith rejoinder and the bank statement vide Exh.12 to
15. It seems that the Leave and License was executed between the
plaintiffs and defendant for a period of 24 months. The defendant
-- 3 of 6 --
Sum. Suit 917 of 2019 .. J/4 .. Judgment
admitted the same in the reply notice. It is also admitted position that
the security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/ was paid by the plaintiff to the
defendant. The perusal of the Leave and License Agreement vide Exh.9
shows that it was agreed to refund the amount of security deposit after
deducting the damages if any. Clause 5 and 6 of the Agreement speaks
about the same. The defendant in the reply notice admitted about the
Agreement and vacating the premises of the defendant. However, as
agreed between the parties, the plaintiff earlier had not refunded the
security deposit and the security deposit was refunded afterwards. That
too, the defendant had not refunded the entire security deposit. The
defendant had retained the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ towards the
damages. However, the defendants neither in the reply notice nor at
any point of time described or demonstrated the nature of damages
caused to the licensed premises. It is also not the case of the defendant
that any electricity bill was due or the plaintiff had not paid the
monthly compensation. It therefore seems that without demonstrating
the nature of the damages or the amount incurred towards the loss of
the licensed premises, the defendant without any reasons had retained
the part security deposit. The defendant had failed to appear and
challenge oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff. It can therefore,
be presumed that the defendant admitted the claim of the plaintiff. The
defendant had also not adduced any kind of evidence to show that the
damage was caused to the licensed premises and therefore, the
defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ alongwith
interest towards the security deposit.
5. The plaintiff had demanded the interest on Rs.4,00,000/
for the period from 13.04.2019 to 27.05.2019 aggregating to
Rs.11,527/. It seems that there was no terms and conditions in the
-- 4 of 6 --
Sum. Suit 917 of 2019 .. J/5 .. Judgment
Leave and License Agreement, entitling the plaintiffs for interest if any
on delay of refund of the security deposit and hence the plaintiff is not
entitled for the interest on the amount of Rs.4,00,000/.
6. The plaintiff demanded the amount with interest at the rate
of 24% per annum. The interest at the rate of 24% per annum is
exorbitant and therefore, it cannot be granted to the plaintiff.
Considering the nature of transaction the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum will suffice the purpose of justice therefore, I, proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
1.The Summary Suit No.917 of 2019 is partly decreed with costs.
2.Defendant shall pay the amount of Rs.1,08,780/ (Rupees One Lakh
Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Only) to the plaintiffs along
with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on the principal
amount of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) from the date of filing
suit till its actual realization.
3.Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4.Court fee if any be refunded as per rules to the plaintiffs.
5.Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open court.
6. R and P be sent to Record Department.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 26092022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 27092022
Transcribed on : 27092022
checked on : 27092022
Signed on : 27092022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 5 of 6 --
Sum. Suit 917 of 2019 .. J/6 .. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
28.09.2022 at 03.00 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
26.09.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 27.09.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 28.09.2022
-- 6 of 6 --