Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1488 (RAJ)

Madan Lal Khandaka v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-04

DALIP SINGH

body2006
Judgment Dalip Singh J.-In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated the respondent be directed to execute the conveyance-deed in terms of the agreement (Anenxure-3) dated 25.01.1991. The petitioner was a licensee of the shop property in dispute and in terms of letter (Annexure-1) dated 05.01.1991 the shop was offered for sale to the petitioner on the condition that in case the petitioner wanted to purchase the said property, he must convey his consent within fifteen days and also deposit 25% of the sale price which was agreed as Rs. 2,05,000/-and execute the agreement. The petitioner sent his consent vide Annexure-2 on the same date i.e., on 05.01.1991 alongwith a pay order for Rs. 51,300/-being 25% of the sale price and agreement (Annexure-3) was executed in terms of the aforesaid with the petitioner by the respondents. 2. In the agreement for the balance 75% of the sale price alongwith interest @ 9% on the balance amount which was liable to be paid was provided. It was mentioned as Rs.1,53,700/-principal and the interest on the said amount as Rs. 38,040/-making the total Rs. 1,91,740/-. The said total amount was to be deposited in ten installments to be paid half yearly as per Para 1 of the agreement. 3. The petitioner has given details of the payment as required by the said agreement in Para 6 of the writ petition and the entire amount was deposited in time as per the said table. 4. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner received a communication (Annexure-14) dated 28.09.1996 from the respondents that the entire amount has been received and that he should submit the conveyance for registration as per law. The case of the petitioner further is that in response to the letter (Annexure-14) dated 28.09.1996, the petitioner submitted stamps and the conveyance alongwith a letter Annexure-15. However, nothing happened thereafter so the petitioner even gave a legal notice to execute the conveyance but as the same was not executed, hence, this writ petition. 5. In response to the notice from the Court, a reply was submitted by the respondents and alongwith the same the respondents also filed a letter dated 26.06.1998 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 5. In response to the notice from the Court, a reply was submitted by the respondents and alongwith the same the respondents also filed a letter dated 26.06.1998 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 56,185/-which was rent due for the property in dispute alongwith interest which had been calculated @ 18% compound interest and since the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 93,986/-the respondents were not obliged to execute the conveyance in pursuance of the agreement. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The respondents in their reply have raised the dispute that petitioner did not deposit an amount of Rs. 93,986/-i.e., the rent of Rs. 56,185/-and compound interest on the said amount @ 18% It is submitted that consequently a demand was sent to the petitioner vide Annexure-R/1 letter dated 26.06.1998. It appears that petitioner has been under the impression that demand of Rs. 93,986/-which was raised on account of any outstanding towards the sale price whereas it has clearly been mentioned in letter dated 26.06.1998 (Annexure-R/1) that the demand is on account of the arrears of rent and interest thereon. Though the petitioner has filed a rejoinder but it has not been decided during the period after execution of the agreement the petitioner who was a licensee and was required to pay the rent in terms of the license agreement did not pay the said rent with the respondents for the shop in dispute, as such, so long as the license agreement was subsisting till the final payment was made on 05.01.1996 the petitioner was liable to pay the rent to the respondents and the respondents are well within their rights to ask for the rent in terms of the license agreement. 7. Having held so there is, however, substance in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was willing to deposit the arrears of rent but the compound interest could not have charged @ 18% in terms of Para 2 of the agreement to sell (Annexure-3) executed on 25.01.1991 as this was not the amount which was due in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement. If at all interest is to be charged, the said interest could be charged in terms of the license agreement or in accordance with the law applicable. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and I am inclined to agree with the aforesaid submission that the respondents could not have charged compound interest @ 18% based upon Para 2 of the agreement to sell (Annexure-3). The said agreement pertains to the payment of installment for the sale price with regard to the principal amount coupled with interest calculated @ 9% p.a. in terms of the said agreement. Admittedly, there was no default so far as installments are concerned and the said installments are deposited within time as mentioned in Para 6 of the writ petition. The interest which the petitioner was liable to given on the rent which was not paid during the period from the year 1991 to 1996 under a misapprehension that petitioner was not liable to pay the rent on account of the agreement to sell the respondents were not justified in charging compound interest @ 18% p.a. based upon the contents of Para 2 of the agreement to sell as the amount of arrears of rent was not the subject matter of the agreement dated 25.01.1991. 9. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and it is hereby ordered that the petitioner shall be furnished a fresh demand for the payment of arrears of rent alongwith interest thereon to be calculated by the respondents based upon the license agreement or in accordance with the general law applicable. The said demand will be furnished to the petitioner within a period of four weeks and the petitioner would deposit the said amount within a period of four weeks thereafter. Once the aforesaid amount is paid within the time allowed, the respondents would execute the conveyance in terms of the agreement dated 25.01.1991 within eight weeks thereafter. 10. This writ petition accordingly stands disposed of , in the light of the above.