JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for a decree of a sum of Rs.2,11,43,293/-along with interim interest and interest upon judgment at 18% per annum. 2. The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, it is engaged in the business of manufacturing carbon-based chemicals and has been continuing the same business for over 30 years all over India and has several manufacturing units spread out all over India. 3. The defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. 4. In the year 2015, the plaintiff company was in search of an area of land situated within the State of West Bengal for setting up another manufacturing unit. 5. In the month of May, 2015, Mr. Arijit De and Mr. Anil Kumar De, representing to be the directors of the defendant company had approached the plaintiff and offered to give on lease a running factory in Purulia, set up over a land measuring approximately 7 Bighas, situated at Village – Gopalpur, P.O. Narayanpur, District – Purulia, West Bengal. 6. The representatives of the defendant, called upon the plaintiff company to take the land along with the factory on lease to use the said unit as the manufacturing unit to fulfil its requirements of setting up another manufacturing unit for its business. 7. The terms of consideration was to be that the possession of the said unit would be handed over within 7 (seven) days of proper execution of lease and the plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-as a refundable security deposit and the lease rental amount would be a sum of Rs.6.50 lakh per month. 8. As per the representation of the defendant, the lease would become effective on and from 15th June, 2015 and would be valid till 14th June, 2017 and thereafter could be extended from time to time. 9. The plaintiff company had agreed to such aforesaid terms and had executed a lease deed dated 15th June, 2015, with the defendant. 10. Pursuant to the execution of the lease deed dated 15th June, 2015, an account payee cheque bearing No. ‘034601’ dated 15th June, 2015, was issued by the plaintiff company in favour of Balaji Hydrocarbons Private Limited, for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-as the refundable security deposit. 11. 10. Pursuant to the execution of the lease deed dated 15th June, 2015, an account payee cheque bearing No. ‘034601’ dated 15th June, 2015, was issued by the plaintiff company in favour of Balaji Hydrocarbons Private Limited, for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-as the refundable security deposit. 11. The said cheque, for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-was encashed by the defendant on 17th June, 2015. Though the defendant had received the security deposit of Rs.80,00,000/-but had not handed over the property to the plaintiff and the defendant has also not taken any steps to register the lease deed. 12. Thereafter, from time to time in its usual and normal course of business, the plaintiff kept making payments to the defendant, starting from 17th July, 2015 upto 9th July, 2016 and the plaintiff has made payment of a total sum of Rs.1,59,15,000/-. 13. The defendant company had accepted all such payments aggregating to Rs.1,59,15,000/-without any demur, protest or objection and inspite of such receipts the defendant company did not hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff. 14. On 31st May, 2016, the plaintiff issued a letter expressing that the document dated 15th June, 2015, had extinguished and not to give effect to the same and to refund the interest free security deposit of Rs.80,00,000/-immediately within seven working days. 15. Upon receipt of the letter dated 31st May, 2016, the Director of defendant company sent a letter dated 4th June, 2016 and informed that he had met Mr. Anurag Chaudhury being the CEO of the plaintiff company on 3rd June, 2016 and subject to the discussion with Mr. Anurag Chaudhury, the letter dated 31st May, 2016 was being treated to be kept on hold. 16. The plaintiff submits that Mr. Anurag Chaudhury, the Director of the plaintiff company neither had accepted the letter nor had he met any agent of the defendant, as alleged. 17. Thereafter, the plaintiff by a telephonic call had requested the defendant company to immediately take steps for refund of the entire amount made over to the defendant. 18. On 16th December, 2016, by way of a letter addressed to the plaintiff, the defendant admitted the telephonic conversation dated 6th December, 2016, between the parties and reiterated its stand, as alleged in the letter dated 4th June, 2016. It was also alleged that the termination was not acknowledged by the lessor. 19. 18. On 16th December, 2016, by way of a letter addressed to the plaintiff, the defendant admitted the telephonic conversation dated 6th December, 2016, between the parties and reiterated its stand, as alleged in the letter dated 4th June, 2016. It was also alleged that the termination was not acknowledged by the lessor. 19. Thereafter, on 5th July, 2017, the plaintiff’s advocate, on the instructions of the plaintiff, had sent a demand notice to the defendant, for a sum of Rs.2,11,43,293/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from June, 2015 to July, 2017. 20. On 16th June, 2017, the defendant had sent a letter to the plaintiff informing the plaintiff that the Lease Deed dated 15th June, 2015, executed between the parties with respect to the land along with structure has expired and is not being renewed. 21. The plaintiff upon receiving the letter dated 16th June, 2017, sent its reply by a letter dated 11th July, 2017, reiterating upon the facts that there was no lease between the parties since the document dated 15th June, 2015, was never given effect to and that the defendant had received sums towards monthly rental in addition to the security deposit in garb of handing over possession and in the same letter, the plaintiff had also asked for refund of a sum of Rs.1,65,47,500/-received by the defendant towards security deposit and monthly rent along with a further interest assessed at 18% per annum from the date of payment till refund. 22. The plaintiff has taken appropriate steps for issuance of writ of summons but the same was returned with the endorsement door of the office of the defendant was closed and the defendant had shifted its office to another place. Thereafter, the plaintiff has incorporated new address of the defendant and the plaintiff was directed to take steps for substituted service of notice by way of paper publication one in “English Newspaper” and one in “Bengali Newspaper”. 23. Accordingly, paper publication was made and a report was obtained from the Deputy Registrar (Court and Judicial), dated 28th November, 2022, wherein it reveals that the defendant has not entered appearance either in person or through the advocate-on-record, hence, the matter was listed as “Undefended Suit”. 24. The plaintiff in order to prove its case has examined one witness, namely, Mr. 24. The plaintiff in order to prove its case has examined one witness, namely, Mr. Raja Mookerjee, who is the Executive Assistant to the CMD and CEO of the plaintiff company. 25. The plaintiff has also exhibited total number of 11 (eleven) documents, marked as “Exhibit – A to Exhibit – K” which are as follows: Exhibit – A Copy of the board resolution, where the plaintiff company had authorised Mr. Raja Mookerjee, to deal with legal matter against the plaintiff company. Exhibit – B A copy of the cheque being cheque no. ‘034601’ dated 15th June, 2015 issued by the plaintiff company in favour of Balaji Hydrocarbons Private Limited for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-. Exhibit – C Copies of bank statement of account of the plaintiff from 16th June, 2015 to 30th June, 2015 of Central Bank of India from the plaintiff’s account being 1209573659, exhibited collectively to show that the cheque given to the defendant for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-had been encashed by the defendant. Exhibit – D Copies of bank statement of account of the plaintiff from 17th July, 2015 to 13th May, 2016 which has been issued by its banker, being State Bank of India for the plaintiff’s account being ‘00000030063918638’, the contents of which will show that the plaintiff had made payments to the defendant, of a total sum of Rs.1,59,15,000/-and the same was encashed by the defendant as well. Exhibit – E A copy of a letter dated 31st May, 2016, issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, wherein the plaintiff had terminated the lease deed. Exhibit – F Copy of a letter dated 4th June, 2016, sent by the Director of the defendant company, namely Mr. Arijit De, to the plaintiff in reply to the letter dated 31st May, 2016, requesting to hold the letter dated 31st May, 2016. Exhibit – G A copy of a letter dated 16th December, 2016, which was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, wherein the defendant acknowledged the telephonic call between the parties and had also reiterated its stand, as alleged in the letter dated 4th June, 2016. Exhibit – H Copy of the notice dated 5th July, 2017, sent by the advocate of the plaintiff, to the defendant, calling upon the defendant for refund of a sum of Rs.1,65,47,500/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Exhibit – H Copy of the notice dated 5th July, 2017, sent by the advocate of the plaintiff, to the defendant, calling upon the defendant for refund of a sum of Rs.1,65,47,500/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Exhibit – I A copy of the details of the amount to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff with interest. Exhibit – J A copy of a letter dated 16th June, 2017, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff terminating the lease deed since the same has expired on 15th June, 2017. Exhibit – K A copy of a letter dated 11th July, 2017, which was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant in reply to the letter dated 16th June, 2017, reiterating the fact that there was no lease between the parties since the document dated 15th June, 2015, was never given effect to and the plaintiff in the same letter had also asked for repayment of the money due to the plaintiff by the defendant amounting to Rs. 1,65,47,500/-along with interest assessed at 18% per annum. 26. Exhibit – B is a copy of a cheque dated 15th June, 2005, bearing No. ‘034601’, for an amount of Rs.80,00,000/-, as security deposit and Exhibit–C is bank statements of the plaintiff, maintained with the Central bank of India,, being account No. ‘1209573659’, which proves that the amount of Rs.80,00,000/-was encashed by the defendant on 17th June, 2015. Exhibit–D, are copies of bank statement of the plaintiff, being the account No. 00000030063918638 of State Bank of India, which shows the details of the payments made by the plaintiff from a period of 17th July, 2015 to 9th July, 2016, cheques amounting to Rs.1,59,15,000/- which the defendant had duly encashed from time to time, the details of the payments are as follows: (i) An amount of Rs.3,70,500/-for the month of June, 2015 was made over on 17th July, 2015. (ii) An amount of Rs.7,41,000/-for the month of July, 2015 was made over on 11th August, 2015.p (iii) An amount of Rs.7,41,000/-for the month of August, 2015 was made over on 10th September, 2015. (iv) An amount of Rs.7,41,000/-for the month of September, 2015 was made over on 22nd September, 2015. (v) An amount of Rs.7,41,000/-and Rs.50,000/-for the month of October, 2015 was made over on 6th November, 2015 and 9th November, 2015. (iv) An amount of Rs.7,41,000/-for the month of September, 2015 was made over on 22nd September, 2015. (v) An amount of Rs.7,41,000/-and Rs.50,000/-for the month of October, 2015 was made over on 6th November, 2015 and 9th November, 2015. (vi) An amount of Rs.7,44,250/-for the month of November, 2015 was made over on 11th December, 2015. (vii) An amount of Rs.7,44,250/-for the month of December, 2015 was made over on 12th January, 2016. (viii) An amount of Rs.7,44,250/-for the month of February, 2016 was made over on 15th February, 2016. (ix) An amount of Rs.7,44,250/-for the month of January, 2016 was made over on 11th March, 2016. (x) An amount of Rs.7,44,250/-for the month of March, 2016 was made over on 18th April, 2016. (xi) An amount of Rs.7,44,250/-for the month of April, 2016 was made over 13th May, 2016.p (xii) An amount of Rs.65,000/-for the month of May, 2016 was made over on 9th July, 2016. 27. The defendant had made several correspondences with the plaintiff and even after receipt of the notice, wherein the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to refund the amount along with interest but the defendant had not denied with regard to the claim of the plaintiff. 28. The Lease Agreement is neither registered nor properly stamped, the same cannot not be relied upon but even though the payment made by the plaintiff to the defendant is proved through another documents and the defendant has not denied the same. 29. The plaintiff by a legal notice dated 5th July, 2017 called upon the defendant for payment of Rs.1,65,47,500/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the said notice was duly received by the defendant but the defendant has neither paid the amount nor sent any reply. 30. Considering the same, this Court finds that the plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff has made payment of Rs.80,00,000/-as refundable securities and thereafter in between June, 2015 to July, 2016 paid Rs.1,59,15,000/-as monthly rent to the defendant but the defendant has neither handed over the possession of the property to the plaintiff nor the amount received by the defendant was returned to the plaintiff. Thus this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/-with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum with effect from 17th July, 2015, till the realization of the said amount and Rs. Thus this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/-with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum with effect from 17th July, 2015, till the realization of the said amount and Rs. 1,59,15,000/-with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum with effect from the month of July, 2015, till realization of the said amount. 31. The defendant ought to have returned the amount to the plaintiff if the defendant was not able hand over the possession the property to the plaintiff. The defendant even after receipt of the request from the plaintiff failed to return the amount due to which the plaintiff compelled to file the present suit and thus the plaintiff is also entitled to get cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 32. In view of the above, the defendant is directed to pay Rs. 80,00,000/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 17th July, 2015, till realization of the said amount. The defendant is also directed to pay Rs, 1,59,15,000/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from the month of July, 2015, till the realization of the said amount. The defendant is further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-as cost to the plaintiff. 33. CS-COM 642 of 2024 (Old No. C.S. 154 of 2017) is disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.