9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over copy of the lease deed by which he took on rent premises No. S-51A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. It is alleged that the plaintiff rented out premises No. E-23, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to the defendant vide lease agreement dated 6th April, 1994 for a period of 3 years on monthly rent of ₹ 28,000/- w.e.f. 10th May, 1994. The lease was to expire on 9th May, 1997 but the plaintiff required the accommodation earlier and requested the defendant to vacate the same by 30th September, 1996 offering him to refund the security, proportionate rental and hire charges. The defendant agreed to consider the plaintiff's request subject to his being able to find alternative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng his position had illegally and unjustly enriched himself taking advantage of the weak position of the plaintiff. It is thus prayed that the defendant is, liable to furnish the requisite documents to the plaintiff regarding new lease and liable to refund the full amount of ₹ 34,00,242/- which he had received unjustly under the agreement dated 19th July, 1996 and to compensate the plaintiff for the loss that he may suffer on account of non-receipt of the documents/information. 4. The defendant filed the written statement inter alias pleading that on the basis of the representations of the plaintiff the defendant entered into an agreement dated 19th July, 1996 agreeing to vacate the plaintiff's premises before the expiry of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises at E-23, Poorvi Marg, New Delhi -110057 the following sums:- Refund. of security deposit: ₹ 59 lacs Refund of advance rent from Sept' 7,96 till 7 June 97: ₹ 2,520 lacs Refund of advance hire charges for fittings and fixtures and built in furniture from Sept' 7,96 till June 97: ₹ 4,986 lacs Refund of proportionate renovation expenses: ₹ 6,250 lacs 2. The Lesser has also agreed to reimburse the cost of additional rent and part of the additional renovation expenses that the lessee will be burdened with on account of earlier vacating of the leased premises and on account of taking another premises on lease, as follows:- A. Rent Differential per month from Sept' 7, 96 till 7 June, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement it was represented to the plaintiff that the defendant had to take accommodation on the higher rent otherwise the question of rent differential would not arise. Similarly ₹ 17,014 lacs was paid towards renovation costs for the new premises. 8. Law with regard unjust enrichment and restitution is well settled by several authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court. Section 70 of Contract Act, 1872 (for short the Act) deals with the obligation of the person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act and Section 72 of the Act mandates that a person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered under mistake or coercion must repay or return it. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving conditions embodied in Sections 70 and 72 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between him and the other person for whom he does something or to whom he delivers something. So where a claim for compensation is made by one person against another under Section 70 it is not on the basis of any subsisting contract between the parties but on a different kind of obligation. The juristic basis of the obligation in such a case is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely, quasi-contract or restitution. 9. In the above decision Supreme Court had also quoted with approval following two English Court decisions.. 1) In Fibrosa y. Fairbairn, (1942) 2 All ER 122, wherein it was hold:- '...any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its several earlier decisions including law laid down in UP Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants Engineers (P) Ltd., (1998) 1 SCC 174 held that the bank has to honour the bank guarantee or the letter of credit with two exceptions where there is a fraud or irreparable injury; it was held that bank must pay if the documents are in order and that bank is not allowed to determine whether seller had actually shipped the goods or whether the goods conformed with the requirement of the contract. In that case the plaint was based only on the allegations regarding absence of movement of goods. Under the circumstance, it was held that non-movement of the goods by seller could be due to the variety of tenable and untenable reasons the seller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
