Janata Sahakari Bank LTD. Pune vs. M/S Gada Enterpirses Thr Its Partner

Held

The Court held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary order as granted by the learned 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 learned Trial Court and the impugned order dated October 28, 2021, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. The Application bearing Exh.-14 filed 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 at Mumbai shall remain deposited till the disposal of the suit. This deposit is over and above the security deposit of Rs. 34,50,000/- which remains with the Plaintiff. The Court directed that the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the Court and Rs. 34,50,000/- with the Plaintiff will be subject to the result of the suit. The Plaintiff was directed to bring back the Rs. 34,50,000/- deposit to the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai if directed by the learned Trial Court. The ratio is that where a party has made a clear offer to settle outstanding dues and deposit amounts, and the other party proceeds with litigation without a clear legal basis for their claims, discretionary relief should not be granted.

Facts

The Petitioner (Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.) and Respondent (M/s. Gada Enterprises) are challenging two orders concerning a Leave and License Agreement and an Amenities and Fixture Agreement. The Plaintiff (Gada Enterprises) is the owner of the suit premises, and the Defendant (Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.) was the licensee. The Leave and License Agreement was for 60 months from April 23, 2013, to April 22, 2018, with a monthly license fee of Rs. 2,00,000. The Amenities and Fixture Agreement, executed on the same day, stipulated a monthly payment of Rs. 3,75,000 for furniture, fixtures, and amenities. The Defendant paid fees and charges until March 31, 2018. The Defendant sought to vacate on March 31, 2018, and requested the refund of the security deposit of Rs. 34,50,000. The Plaintiff proposed deductions totaling Rs. 13,34,369 from the security deposit for maintenance, electricity, and water charges. The Defendant disputed these deductions and offered to pay Rs. 8,94,940 towards society maintenance charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff (M/s. Gada Enterprises) is entitled to the relief of directing the Defendant (Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.) to deposit Rs. 1,52,44,594/- in the Court as per the particulars of claim, and to pay contractual amounts and daily penalties, as sought in Interim Application Exh.-14 in L. E. & C. Suit No.102 of 2018. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant was liable for arrears of rent, liquidated damages, and other charges beyond the license period. The Plaintiff relied on the Leave and License Agreement and the Amenities and Fixture Agreement to claim the amounts due. 2. Whether the Defendant (Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.) is entitled to the refund of its security deposit of Rs. 34,50,000/- after deducting admitted charges and the Plaintiff's (M/s. Gada Enterprises) claim regarding the Amenities and Fixture Agreement. The Defendant contended that they had cleared all dues, including society maintenance charges, and that the Plaintiff's deductions from the security deposit were disputed. The Defendant highlighted their offer to pay maintenance charges and sought the refund of the balance security deposit.