9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Institution, signing, and verification of the suit. 2. Existence of a concluded contract. 3. Nature of the payment (advance rent or token money). 4. Misrepresentation by the defendant. 5. Defects in the defendant's title to the premises. 6. Entitlement to interest. 7. Entitlement to damages by the defendant. 8. Validity and legality of the appropriation of Rs. 1 lakh by the defendant. 9. Payment of proper court fee by the defendant on the counter-claim. 10. Entitlement of the defendant to claim interest. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: The plaintiff's representative, PW I, presented the original power of attorney and minutes book, proving the resolution authorizing him to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit. The court held that the suit was properly instituted, signed, and verified by a duly authorized person. The issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2: The court examined the documents exchanged between the parties to determine if a concluded contract existed. The plaintiff's letter dated August 5, 1983, and the defendant's receipt of Rs. 1 lakh as token money indicated that the lease deed was subject to finalization. The court concluded that the execution of the lease deed was a condition precedent for the contract, and no concluded contract existed between the parties. This issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 3: The court found that the Rs. 1 lakh was paid as token money and not as advance rent. This amount was to be adjusted against the total advance only if the lease deed was executed. Since no concluded contract existed, the Rs. 1 lakh could not be considered advance rent. The issue was decided against the defendant. Issue No. 4: The court determined that the defendant misrepresented its authority to lease the premises. The defendant failed to disclose its capacity to lease the premises until after receiving the token money. This misrepresentation invalidated any potential contract, allowing the plaintiff to avoid the agreement. The issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 5: The court noted that the defendant did not have a valid occupancy certificate from the DDA, which was necessary for occupying the premises. However, the absence of an occupancy certificate did not void the contract under the law. Nonetheless, the misrepresentation regarding the defendant's authority to lease the premises vitiated the contract. The issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 6: The plaintiff was entitled to interest under the Interest Act from the date of the notice (November 17/18, 1983). The court awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of the notice until realization. The issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 7: The court found that the defendant did not suffer damages as it was not the owner of the property. The owner, M/s. Pawan Builders Private Limited, suffered any potential damages. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to recover damages from the plaintiff. The issue was decided against the defendant. Issue No. 8: Since no concluded contract existed, the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 1 lakh, and the defendant was not entitled to retain it. The defendant was bound to refund the amount upon the plaintiff's demand. The issue was decided against the defendant. Issue No. 9: The court held that the defendant was required to pay court fees on the entire counter-claim amount, including the Rs. 1 lakh claimed as adjusted. The defendant was instructed to furnish the court fee within two weeks. The issue was decided against the defendant. Issue No. 10: As the defendant was not entitled to recover damages, it was also not entitled to claim interest. The issue was decided against the defendant. Relief: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, awarding Rs. 1 lakh with interest at 12% per annum from September 20, 1983, until realization. The plaintiff was also awarded the costs of the suit. The defendant's counter-claim was dismissed. Suit decreed.
|
