Parsvnath Developers Limited vs. Mr. Vikram Khosla

Held

The Court held that since the Defendant was proceeded ex-parte and failed to file a written statement, the averments in the plaint were deemed correct and admitted. The Court agreed with the Plaintiff's reliance on judgments that in ex-parte matters, directing evidence is unnecessary. Regarding the issues: 1. The Court found that the Defendant had defaulted in paying sub-license fees from April 2017 onwards and failed to rectify the breach after receiving a demand-cum-termination notice. Consequently, the Defendant had no lien, right, or interest in the suit premises as per the SLA and was liable to restore possession. The Court granted a decree for possession. 2. The Plaintiff was held entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 91,54,682/- as license fee (including GST/service tax) for the period from April 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018. The Court also granted a decree for electricity charges amounting to Rs. 20,88,761/- for the period from January 14, 2016, to March 31, 2018. However, the claim for mesne profits at Rs. 10,00,000/- per month was not sustained as no such stipulation existed in the SLA, nor was evidence led to support this figure. The Court awarded damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per month from September 1, 2018, till the handing over of possession. 3. The license fee was to be paid at 18% per annum (as per clause 4.7 of the SLA) from September 1, 2018, till realization. The Plaintiff was also entitled to interest at 6% per annum, pendente lite and future, till realization on the electricity charges of Rs. 20,88,761/- from April 1, 2018. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file deficient court fee. No costs were awarded.

Facts

Parsvnath Developers Limited (Plaintiff) filed a suit against Vikram Khosla (Defendant) for recovery of monies and possession of a portion of Parsvnath Metro Mall. The dispute arose from a Sub Licence Agreement (SLA) and an Amenities Agreement dated January 28, 2016. The Plaintiff claimed outstanding sub-license fees, electricity charges, service tax/GST, and mesne profits totaling Rs. 2,42,47,498/-. The Defendant failed to appear, and the Court proceeded ex-parte. The Plaintiff sought a decree for possession and recovery of the claimed amounts, along with interest. The Court noted that claims under the Amenities Agreement were not part of the suit due to an arbitration clause.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit premises, considering the Defendant has been proceeded ex-parte and has allegedly defaulted on payments and failed to vacate as per the SLA? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the SLA and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC). 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover outstanding sub-license fees, electricity charges, and mesne profits as claimed, and if so, for what amounts and periods? (Question of law and fact, turning on the terms of the SLA and the evidence presented). 3. What is the appropriate rate of interest on the amounts due, and from what dates? (Question of law, turning on the SLA and general principles of interest). Contentions of the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendant was proceeded ex-parte, the averments in the plaint should be deemed admitted. They relied on various judgments of coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court to support the proposition that in ex-parte matters, directing evidence is unnecessary. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant's failure to pay and failure to vacate after termination notice entitled them to possession and recovery of dues. They sought recovery of Rs. 91,54,682/- for license fee (including GST/service tax) from April 2017 to August 2018, Rs. 1,30,04,055/- as mesne profit from September 2018 to August 2019, and Rs. 20,88,761/- for electricity charges. They also sought interest at 18% per annum on license fees and 6% per annum on electricity charges. Contentions of the Revenue/State: Not recorded in the judgment.