Arguments

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
SUIT NO._____ /2017.
In Re:
Singer Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiffs
Versus
WinSoft Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd. Defendants
Written Argument by and on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Most Respectfully Showeth:-

Brief Facts of the case:-
The plaintiff company is the owner of Jubilee Plaza, the lease property.
Ms. Neena Elizabeth, the MDof defendant company, found the property suitable
for their purposes. They signed a lease deed for a monthly rent of 2 lacs INR to be
paid in advance by 7th of every month for which the payment was due, along with
the parking space for 2 cars at the monthly rent of 8,000 INR.
The lease deed contained a standard clause of payment of security deposit

equivalent to three months rent which was liable to be forfeited in case of breach
of the contact and a lock-in period of 3years.
On 15 September yr-4 shifted to the property. Ms. Neena Elizabeth gave positive
feedback.
On 25 march yr-2 plaintiffs received a 3 months notice for termination of lease

citing limitation of space as a reason for said termination.
On 26 April yr-2 defendants sent a legal notice raising the grievance regarding
maintenance of the property.
30 March yr-2 defendants left the property.
At their request on 1 September yr-2 a joint inspection was conducted, the

premises were in good condition, just as when they were given on lease. The
property remained unutilized and unproductive of rent right upto1 February yr-1,
when new tenant approached plaintiffs.
.
The Following issues were framed from the pleading of the parties:
I. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the rent for

unexpired lock-in period as the lease did not contain any
provision for penalty or liquidated damages for pre mature
termination of lease?
II. Whether the plaintiffs committed breach of contract?
ISSUE NO.I.
1. With respect to issue no. I, it is submitted to the Honble

court that the defendants admittedly terminated the lease
agreement during the lock in period of 3 years. During
the lock- in period either party to the contract cannot
unilaterally terminate the contract. On the part of landlord
the very purpose of the lock-in period is to ensure that the
tenant stays in the property during that period or make
good all the losses incurred by the landlord in case pre
mature termination of the lease agreement.
2. Admittedly, in lease deed there wasnt any provisions of

penalty or liquidated damages in case lease is terminated
prior to the lock-in period, because there wasnt any need
for such provisions since in the case of termination of
lease prior to the expiry of lock-in period it implied that
the defendant had a pre-existing liability to pay the rent
for the unexpired period.
So from above it is clear that by unilateral termination of lease
they defendants have committed breach of contract, their
security deposit is liable to be forfeited.
ISSUE NO.II.
1. As in her cross examination, Ms. Neena Elizabeth, MD

of Defendant Company admitted that, on insistence of
Plaintiff Company she visited the property and had an
instant liking for it. Further in his statement manager of
Ms. Neena Elizabeth, Mr.Sooraj Krishan admitted that
the property was too small for their purposes.
2. He admitted in his cross examination that the notice of

termination of lease agreement did not contain the
maintenance issues as the reason for pre-mature
termination of lease which they were allegedly facing
since the very beginning after shifting to the property the
reason cited in the termination notice was lack of space.
So, in order to avoid the legal consequences of pre-
mature termination of lease during lock-in period they
came up with the false allegations of maintenance
problems in the property, while the real motive was to
shift to an alternate property because they have employed
more staff whom they cannot accommodate in lease
property.
3. Moreover no such complaints were ever received from

other occupants of the property and the property was
repaired and maintained at regular intervals.
It is clear from that there was no breach of contract on part of
plaintiffs as alleged by defendants.
In view of the above counsel for plaintiffs humbly request to this

Honble Court to direct the defendants to pay rent for the entire
unexpired lock-in period along with interest @ 18% per annum.
Delhi
Dated:
Through
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Arguments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arguments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arguments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

SUIT NO._____ /2017.

Singer Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiffs

WinSoft Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd. Defendants

Written Argument by and on behalf of Plaintiffs:

Most Respectfully Showeth:-

The lease deed contained a standard clause of payment of security deposit

On 25 march yr-2 plaintiffs received a 3 months notice for termination of lease

30 March yr-2 defendants left the property.

At their request on 1 September yr-2 a joint inspection was conducted, the

I. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the rent for

II. Whether the plaintiffs committed breach of contract?

1. With respect to issue no. I, it is submitted to the Honble

2. Admittedly, in lease deed there wasnt any provisions of

1. As in her cross examination, Ms. Neena Elizabeth, MD

2. He admitted in his cross examination that the notice of

3. Moreover no such complaints were ever received from

In view of the above counsel for plaintiffs humbly request to this

Counsel for Plaintiffs

You might also like