M/S Gada Enterprises vs. Janata Sahakari Bank LTD Pune

Held

The Court held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary order granted by the Trial Court. It was an admitted position that the Defendant had cleared all dues towards maintenance charges. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 20, 2019, passed by the Trial Court, and the impugned order dated October 28, 2021, passed by the Appellate Bench. The Application bearing Exh.-14 in L. E. & C. Suit No.102 of 2018 was dismissed. The Court clarified that the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- deposited before the Court of Small Causes would remain deposited until the disposal of the suit, and this deposit was over and above the security deposit of Rs. 34,50,000/- with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was directed to bring back the security deposit of Rs. 34,50,000/- to the Court of Small Causes if directed by the Trial Court. The ratio is that a party seeking discretionary relief must act equitably, and the existence of a substantial security deposit can negate the need for further interim deposits, especially when dues are cleared.

Facts

The Petitioner, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Defendant), and Respondent, M/s. Gada Enterprises (Plaintiff), are parties to a Leave and License Agreement dated April 23, 2013, for shop premises. The agreement period was 60 months, ending April 22, 2018. A separate Amenities and Fixture Agreement was also executed on the same date. The Defendant paid license fees and amenity charges until March 31, 2018, and sought refund of the security deposit of Rs. 34,50,000/-. The Plaintiff proposed deductions totaling Rs. 13,34,369/- for maintenance, electricity, and water charges. The Defendant disputed these deductions and offered to pay Rs. 8,94,940/- towards society maintenance charges, requesting the balance security deposit. The Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and compensation, seeking a direction for the Defendant to deposit Rs. 1,52,44,594/- and Rs. 38,500/- per day as penalty. The Trial Court and Appellate Bench confirmed the order directing the Defendant to deposit arrears of rent and liquidated damages.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the amounts as per the particulars of claim annexed to the Interim Application (Exh.-14) in L. E. & C. Suit No.102 of 2018, including contractual amounts and daily penalty, given the Defendant's offer to pay maintenance charges and the existence of a substantial security deposit? Petitioner (Defendant) argued that the Plaintiff's claim for substantial amounts, including daily penalty, was unjustified, especially when the Defendant had cleared dues and offered to pay maintenance charges. They relied on the correspondence and the compromise formula proposed by the Defendant, highlighting the Plaintiff's failure to respond and their subsequent filing of the suit. The Defendant emphasized the security deposit available with the Plaintiff. Respondent (Plaintiff) argued for the deposit of the claimed amounts, including contractual payments and daily penalty, as per the Leave and License and Amenities and Fixture Agreements, and sought to withdraw these amounts as deposited. They contended that the Defendant was using the premises beyond the license period and was liable for compensation and damages.