Judgment : Valmiki J. Mehta, J (ORAL);- 1. The subject suit for recovery of Rs. 85,74,193/- plus interest of Rs. 21,95,086.50 has been filed by the plaintiff/lessor which leased the suit premises along with plant and machinery to the defendant/lessee -M/s Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking. I may, for the sake of completion of narration, state that defendant-company was originally M/s.Ganesh Flour Mills Company Limited which was taken over by the present defendant-company. 2. The facts of the case are that parties entered into a lease deed dated 26.3.1984, Ex.P-1, whereby in consideration of a rent of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the plaintiff let out the premises Jaipur Road, Narsingpur Village, Gurgaon, Haryana (about 3 acres) along with the plant and machinery, specified in Schedule A to Ex.P-1, to the defendant. The plant and machinery installed in the premises was for manufacture of refined oil. In terms of the agreement Ex.P-1, the capacity as existing on the date of agreement was 50 metric tons per day (50 mt/day) and if the plaintiff/lessor was able to enhance the capacity to manufacture refined oil to 100 metric tons per day, then, rent payable would become double from Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff did, in fact, increase the capacity to 100 metric tons per day with effect from 1.1.1985, but the defendant failed to pay double the rent, and continued to only pay the original rent of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, and therefore, the plaintiff claims this difference of rent at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from 1.1.1985 till the conclusion of the lease on 25.3.1986 and in addition thereto rent at the same rate till the date of filing of the suit on 4.1.1988 inasmuch as the plaintiff claims that possession was never delivered by the defendant of the premises along with plant and machinery to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claims interest on the amount stated to be due. 3(i) The defendant has contested the suit and denied that it is liable to pay rental charges at Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. It is denied that 100 metric tons per day capacity became operational, inasmuch as the plaintiff had failed to provide the additional facility (being the enhanced electricity load) to make the plant operational to the capacity of 100 metric tons per day. 3,00,000/- per month. It is denied that 100 metric tons per day capacity became operational, inasmuch as the plaintiff had failed to provide the additional facility (being the enhanced electricity load) to make the plant operational to the capacity of 100 metric tons per day. This is stated in para 12 of the written statement which reads as under: “12. The contents of paragraph 12 are admitted to the extent that the Agreement dated 26.3.1984 provided that with the increase in the actual refining capacity to 100 Metric Tons per Day the monthly rent will be increased proportionately. It is, however, denied that by merely making available all or some of the equipment listed out in Annexure – “B” the capacity would actually increase to 100 Metric Tons per Day. To increase the capacity to 100 Metric Tons per Day. Certain additional facilities were also required to be provided by the Plaintiff so as to make the refining capacity of 100 Metric tons per Day actually available. This was well and clearly understood between the parties.” (ii) The defendant further pleaded that the possession of the premises was handed over back to the plaintiff on the date of termination of the lease, because the employees of the plaintiff and related persons were always in the suit premises right from the first day. Though there seem to be slightly variant stands of the defendant in the written statement inasmuch as whereas in para 19 of the written statement, it is pleaded that the question of handing over the possession by the defendant does not arise because the possession automatically reverted back to the plaintiff on the expiry of lease period from 25.3.1986, a portion of para 21 states as under:- “21. ------- During entire period of the lease, Shri Ranbir and Shri Kirni of the Plaintiff were posted there at the leased premises as representative of the plaintiff. These two person continued to be present in the leased premises even after 25.3.1986. Shri Dang a close relative of Shri Charanjit Grover was also present during the period of the lease and it was the knowledge of all the three persons as also the plaintiff that the leased premises were vacated and handed over to the plaintiff on 25.3.1986. These two person continued to be present in the leased premises even after 25.3.1986. Shri Dang a close relative of Shri Charanjit Grover was also present during the period of the lease and it was the knowledge of all the three persons as also the plaintiff that the leased premises were vacated and handed over to the plaintiff on 25.3.1986. thus there is no question of any claims for rent or damages of the plaintiff being maintainable after 25.3.1986.” However there is not a too great divergence and in sum and substance what is pleaded is that possession reverted to the plaintiff at the end of the lease period. Learned senior counsel for the defendant, however, during the course of arguments conceded that some amount of stock (and some personnel were, in fact, posted at the suit premises) was stored even after expiry of lease agreement on 25.6.1983, however, the storage was hardly for a few days inasmuch as the electricity in the suit premises was disconnected on 17.4.1986, as per the statement of DW2, Mr.Rishi Prakash Sharma, an employee of Haryana State Electricity Board (=HSEB). 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 12.12.1988:- “1. Whether the suit has been filed and plaint signed and verified by a duly authorized person? 2. Whether the additional equipment and machinery had not been installed in its entirety? If so, its effect? 3. Whether the defendant is not liable to pay rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 3 lakhs per month with effect from 1st January, 1985? 4. Whether the defendant has delivered the possession of plant and machinery to the plaintiff? If so, when? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate; on what amount and for what period? 6. To what amount the plaintiff is entitled. 7. Relief.” Issue No.4 was recast vide order dated 18.7.1989, which reads as under:- “4. Whether defendant had delivered possession of the demised premises, plant & machinery to the plaintiff? If so, when?” ISSUE NO.1 5. Learned senior counsel for the defendant does not press issue No.1. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff and it is held that the suit has been duly signed, verified and filed. ISSUES NO. 2 TO 4 6. If so, when?” ISSUE NO.1 5. Learned senior counsel for the defendant does not press issue No.1. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff and it is held that the suit has been duly signed, verified and filed. ISSUES NO. 2 TO 4 6. These three issues can be dealt with together inasmuch as they deal with the claim of the plaintiff for the enhanced rent @ Rs. 3 lacs per month till the defendant occupied the suit premises and the corresponding defence of the defendant of disentitlement of the plaintiff to claim enhancement and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the rental charges for the period till filing of the suit on 4.1.1988. 7. The first aspect is whether the plaintiff did, in fact, increase the capacity from 50 Metric Tons/Day to 100 Metric Tons/Day. It could not be seriously disputed on behalf of the defendant that the capacity was in fact increased to 100 Metric Tons/Day by installing of the machinery inasmuch as not only witnesses of the defendant have admitted this fact specifically, but also, there is a report dated 14.10.85 of the consultant appointed by the defendant, namely, M/s Mectech Process Engineers Private Limited, Ex.P-6, which shows that the capacity was increased to 100 Metric Tons/Day. What is however very vehemently and strongly argued on behalf of the defendant is that the increased capacity was of no effect unless there was corresponding increase in power to run the capacity of 100 Metric Tons/Day. 8. In order to appreciate this defence of enhancement of capacity being of no effect without increase in electricity load it is necessary at this stage, to refer to two entries contained in Annexures A and B respectively of the agreement Ex.P1 dated 26.3.1984. The first entry is at serial No.2 of Annexure “A” which states that the sanctioned electricity load existing at the time of entering into the agreement on 26.3.84 is 66 KVA. The second entry is at serial No.8 of Annexure “B” of Ex.P-1, which specifically provides that extra load of at least 75 KVA is required to make operational 100 Metric Tons/Day. I may, at this stage, state that it is not disputed on behalf of the defendant that actually the load in the leased premises was 78 KVA and not 66 KVA. I may, at this stage, state that it is not disputed on behalf of the defendant that actually the load in the leased premises was 78 KVA and not 66 KVA. It is argued that since the sanctioned load from the local electricity body, namely HSEB, is admittedly not enhanced by 75 KVA, therefore, even if there was machinery fixed with capacity of 100 Metric Tons/Day, the same was of no use because the plant could not have been run without total sanctioned electricity load of 66 KVA + 75 KVA viz 141 KVA. 9. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff in response argued that the plaintiff had provided the electricity load to run the capacity of 100 Metric Tons/Day inasmuch as the defendant admits that there was a load of 78 KVA and since the plaintiff had provided a diesel generator set of 125 KVA, total of 125 KVA + 78 KVA, i.e. 203 KVA was available, and therefore, the same was sufficient to run the plant of 100 Metric Tons/Day i.e as per EX.P-1, at best a load of 141 KVA was required, whereas the plaintiff had provided a load of 203 KVA. 10. I am unable to agree with the argument as urged on behalf of the plaintiff. By pure mathematics it can be said that a load of 125 KVA of the diesel generator set and 78 KVA from Haryana State Electricity Board totals to 203 KVA, however, what is important to note is that at one point of time the one point source of supply must cause and bring about a load of 141 KVA, because by laws of science two separate sources of electricity can never be joined to produce a total electricity load inasmuch as supply of electricity is not like adding various sacks containing kilograms of cereals to make total kilograms of cereals by adding the weight of the sacks. It is not the case of the plaintiff (and nor can it be case of the plaintiff), that at the point from where electricity is being supplied as per sanctioned load of 78 KVA, at that point, since from the diesel generator set of 125 KVA there is an input, there results a total supply load of electricity to be 203 KVA from a single source of supply. As already stated, of course it is another matter that even if this was so alleged by the plaintiff, it would be of no use because on the principles of physics and science it is not possible that simply by having an additional source of supply there results a total existing load of electricity. An example will make this clear. Suppose there is a very big pipe in which the water flows. If the said pipe has additional capacity to take additional water, then, by adding further flow of water the total capacity/cusecs of water supply through the pipe will be the total water which is in the pipe, however, in electricity supply, it is not as if by adding the source of supply there results a total increased load, because this is impossible in terms of science. Further, it is not the case of the plaintiff that there are separate phases of the factory premises, i.e one part of the factory is run with the sanctioned load from Haryana State Electricity Board of 78 KVA and another part of the factory which is run only on the diesel generator set of 125 KVA, and therefore, the net effect is that the total factory is capable of running with a capacity of 100 Metric Tons/Day. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove its case that the 100 Metric Tons/Day plant was able to run inasmuch as there was no electric supply at one point source so that there could be available 203 KVA or even 141 KVA for running of the plant of 100 Metric Tons/Day. Once there is no power supply to run the capacity of 100 Metric Tons/Day, there does arise any issue of payment to the plaintiff of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. Once there is no power supply to run the capacity of 100 Metric Tons/Day, there does arise any issue of payment to the plaintiff of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. I may, at this stage, clarify that though learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has sought to place reliance upon Ex.P-16 which are minutes of meetings of the defendant company, as also Ex.P-6 dated 14.10.1985 (the inspection report of M/s Mectech Process Engineers Private Limited) to argue that the plant of 100 Metric Tons/Day was complete, however, this argument of the learned senior counsel of the plaintiff ignores the position that issue is not only of increasing of the capacity, but whether additional capacity can run in the absence of total electric supply of at least 141 KVA. Learned senior counsel has failed to prove that there was total supply of electricity of 141 KVA. The claim of the plaintiff therefore for enhanced lease rental of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month is rejected. 12. A related issue is that even if the defendant is liable to pay only Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, till when is this amount payable? Is the amount payable till the date of filing of the suit i.e 4.1.1988 because the plaintiff alleges that the possession of the premises was not handed over to the plaintiff along with plant and machinery. 13. To understand this aspect, I have already reproduced above a portion of para 21 of written statement filed by the defendant which shows that the issue of formally handing over and taking over of possession did not arise because three personnel of the plaintiff Sh.Ranbir, Sh.Kirni and Sh.Dang (a closed relative of Charanjit Singh) were always present at the suit premises till the period of the lease. The plaintiff in its replication had ample opportunity to specifically deny this fact, however, when we look at para 21 of the replication on merits we find that there is no specific denial with respect to the averments made of the three personnel of the plaintiff existing in the factory premises. Para 21 of the replication reads as under:- “21. It is denied that the defendant surrendered and delivered the demised premises to the Plaintiff. By the letter of 13.8.1985, the defendant informed the Plaintiff, that the said lease shall come to an end on the 25th March, 1986. Para 21 of the replication reads as under:- “21. It is denied that the defendant surrendered and delivered the demised premises to the Plaintiff. By the letter of 13.8.1985, the defendant informed the Plaintiff, that the said lease shall come to an end on the 25th March, 1986. The defendant advised the Plaintiff to make arrangements to take back possession of the premises on due date. The plaintiff informed the defendant by a letter dated 21.8.1985 to hand over the possession on due date of the demised premises together with all plant and machinery as detailed in the Lease Deed and that had been installed by the Plaintiff in December 1984. The defendant did not physically surrender or deliver possession to the Plaintiff and continued to be in possession after 25.3.1986. The defendant has not surrendered possession to Plaintiff till to-day. The Plaintiff is ready and willing to accept surrender of possession according to Law even now provided physical possession of premises, plant and machinery after spot verification is handed over to the Plaintiff against receipt.” A reference to the aforesaid para 21 of the replication shows that there is no specific denial of the presence of the three personnel of the plaintiff as stated in para 21 of the written statement, and therefore, the contents in this regard of this written statement are deemed to be admitted. 14. In my opinion, there is another reason to hold that defendant is not liable to pay charges of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month till the suit was filed on 4.1.1988 inasmuch as the defendant has led evidence of DW2 Mr.Rishi Prakash Sharma, an employee of Haryana State Electricity Board, who has deposed to the effect that the electricity supply in the premises was disconnected on 17.4.1984 and till the date of recording of evidence by this witness on 17.2.1994, the electricity stood disconnected. The plaintiff, therefore, in my opinion, is clearly not entitled to any charges of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month till the date the suit was filed on 4.1.1988. 15. In my opinion, however, since learned senior counsel for the defendant was fair enough to admit that some amount of stock (and personnel) of the defendant did remain for some weeks in the suit premises after expiry of the lease, I would grant the plaintiff charges of Rs. 15. In my opinion, however, since learned senior counsel for the defendant was fair enough to admit that some amount of stock (and personnel) of the defendant did remain for some weeks in the suit premises after expiry of the lease, I would grant the plaintiff charges of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month being the charges from 1.4.1986 till 31.7.1986 inasmuch as some sort of evidence is on record that personnel of the defendant-company were, in fact, present till 11.7.1986. There is no objection of the defendant to this aspect of the claim. 16. There is another reason for me to decline the claim of rental charges post 25.3.1986 inasmuch as an admitted fact has come on record and which is that the sister concern of the plaintiff, i.e one M/s. G.T.Management Services, a division of M/s. Grover Tankers Pvt. Ltd., provided the labour services for carrying out production in the demised premises. The contract with M/s G.T. Management Services was a back to back contract for the same period for which lease was granted of the suit premises to the defendant, and the contract with M/s. G.T.Management Services stood terminated on 15.3.1986. This is specifically stated in para 21 of the written statement filed by the defendant and once again in the replication there is no denial to these facts which were stated in the written statement. I have already reproduced para 21 of the replication above. An additional fact to be noted is that it is also not disputed that the managing director of the plaintiff company is Mr.Charanjit Singh who is also the Managing Director of the labour supply company M/s. Grover Tanker Pvt. Ltd. Once the labour contract stood terminated, the defendant could not have utilized the premises for production of the refined oil and thus there is a clear indication that no production was carried out after the expiry of the lease period on 25.3.1986. 17. Issue nos.2 to 4 are accordingly decided against the plaintiff by holding that plaintiff will only be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from 1.4.1986 to 31.7.1986. ISSUE NO.5 18. Since issues 2 to 4 are decided against the plaintiff, there is no question of granting any interest. Therefore, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. ISSUES NO. 6 & 7 19. 1,50,000/- per month from 1.4.1986 to 31.7.1986. ISSUE NO.5 18. Since issues 2 to 4 are decided against the plaintiff, there is no question of granting any interest. Therefore, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. ISSUES NO. 6 & 7 19. Before giving the operational part of this judgment, I must state that earnest efforts were made by the defendant to see resolution of the disputes in a very fair manner, however, inspite of best efforts of the defendant, and which almost succeeded, the plaintiff failed to respond to the fair offer of the defendant and it was insisted that plaintiff wants nothing less than Rs. 3,00,000/- per month, and that too till the filing of the suit, and therefore, the compromise talks broke down. 20. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 85,74,193/- plus interest of Rs. 21,95,086.50 as prayed for, is dismissed, however, a decree is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum simple till payment is made by the defendant to the plaintiff. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.