BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, KOCHI

O.S.No. /2011

PLAINTIFF:

M/S Bhansali and Company,

54-EZra street, Calcutta.700001
A registered co-partnership firm
Represented by Krishna Kumar.J.Shah,
Aged 54 years,
S/o Jayanthilal.J.Shah, residing at
4A, Girinagar Garden Apartments,
Girinagar Link Road, Kadavanthara,
Cochin 20.

Vs

RESPONDENT:

Prakson Estates and Industries

Parkson house, CWC Buildings
G.V. Iyer road, Willington Island
Kochi.

1. All Service of notice on the petitioner is as above or on their counsel M/s.

Sanjay and Parvathi, Advocates, Neethi, Paul Abrao Road, Ernakulam North,
Cochin 18

2. Service of notice on the respondent is as above or on their counsel as and

when engaged.

SUIT FOR ARREARS OF RENT AND ALSO EVICTION/MANDATORY

INJUNCTION FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 C.P.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm having its principal office at

54/zra street Calcutta-1 and is being represented by Krishna
Kumar.J.Shah, Aged 54 years, S/o Jayanthilal.J.Shah, residing at 4A,
Girinagar Garden Apartments, Girinagar Link Road, Kadavanthara,
Cochin 20. who is the Constitution Attorney for and on behalf of the
plaintiff firm . The plaintiff firm is the lessee of the Cochin port trust by
the lease deed dated 11.11.1961. The plaint scheduled premises was taken
on lease for a period of 30 years by the plaintiff firm and the lease was
subsequently extended for a further period of 30 years for 7.8.1991 to
6.8.2021. The plaint scheduled property was taken on lease by
 the defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.39,300/- after deducting TDS from
the total amount of Rs.47,878 (which includes the monthly rent+ court
sub levy+ water/electricity charges) Though the lease period was only
initially for eleven months, the lease was renewed subsequently and still
continues now.

2. The defendant has taken the scheduled godown on lease from the plaintiff
vide their acceptance letter dated 23.10.2000 by which the defendant has
accepted all terms and conditions offered by the plaintiff vide its offer
letter dated 20.10.2000. The lease was one for eleven months from
23.10.2000 to 22.9.2001. But the defendant continued to be the plaintiff’s
tenant and still remains to be the plaintiff’s tenant.. As per the agreement
with the plaintiff, the defendant is paying a monthly rent of Rs 39,300.00
after deducting TDS from the total amount of Rs 47,878.00 (which
includes the monthly rent + port sub levy + water/electricity charges).

3. The plaintiff had issued a notice dated 7.3.2010 seeking the defendant to
make payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs 1,91,512/- together with
interest at the rate of 18% from the dates the said amounts are due, also for
handing over the TDS certificates for an amount of Rs 2,57,340/- that the
defendant has deducted from the rent and also to vacate the premises
forthwith at any rate within one month from the receipt of the said notice. On
receipt of the said notice, the defendant made part payment of the arrears of
rent but had not vacated the premises and had not issued the TDS
certificates. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to issue another lawyer
notice dated 14.6.2010 in which the plaintiff had sought for issuance of TDS
certificates and had also sought the defendant’s vacating the premises. The
defendant on receipt of the same issued a reply notice dated 28.6.2010
stating that TDS certificates will be issued during the end of the financial
year ie before 13.3.2011. Moreover the defendant denied the plaintiff’s
bonafide need of the scheduled premises.
4. The plaintiff was thereafter constrained to sent the defendant a
notice dated 9.11.2010, in which the plaintiff had re iterated that
TDS certificates were to be filed along with the annual returns
before 31.9.2010 before the Tax Department. Moreover the
plaintiff had also claimed a loss of Rs 2,65,918.00 which the
plaintiff had suffered as a result of the absence of the TDS
certificates that could not be filed along with the returns. The
defendant has not replied so far to the same.
5. Since the plaintiff wants the plaint schedule premises for itself,
the plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice stating that the
lease is terminated with effect from 28 th February, 2011 and that
the defendant is requested to vacate the premises on 1.3.2011.
The respondent has received the same and the acknowledgement
is being produced herewith.
6. The plaintiff claims arrears of rent from November 2,010 till
August, 2011 at the rate of Rs 47,878.00 which comes to a total
of Rs 4,78,780. The plaintiff received a demand draft dated
12.4.2011 for Rs 50,000/-. After deducting the said amount, the
arrears of rent comes to Rs 4,28,780. The plaintiff claims a loss
Rs 2,65,918.00 which the plaintiff had suffered as a result of the
absence of the TDS certificates for the financial year 2009-2010
and the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the absence of TDS
certificates for the financial year 2010-2011 is Rs 60,046.00
Thus the plaintiff claims a total amount of Rs 7,54,744.00 from
the defendant. Court fee is being paid for the said amount.
7. As per S.R.O. 923/75, the buildings owned by the Cochin Port
Trust within the State are exempted from all the provisions of the
Kerala Building and Lease Rent Control Act. As per S.R.O.
167/77, the Government of Kerala has exempted buildings
constructed by licensees and lessees of the Cochin Port Trust on
lands belonging to the said Trust from the purview of Kerala
Building and Lease Rent Control Act. The plaintiff firm is the lessee
of the Cochin port trust by the lease deed dated 11.11.1961. The
plaint scheduled premises was taken on lease for a period of
30
years by the plaintiff firm and the lease was subsequently extended for a
further period of 30 years for 7.8.1991 to 6.8.2021. Due to the exemption
provisions mentioned above, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

8. The Cause of action for the litigation rose on 20.10.2000, when the offer
letter was sent by the plaintiff, on 23.10.2000 when acceptance letter
was sent by the defendant vide which they accepted all terms and
conditions offered by the plaintiff, on 7.3.2010, 0n 14.6.2010, 9.11.2010
and .1.2011, the dates on which registered lawyer notices were sent to
the defendant seeking eviction of the plaint schedule premises. The
plaint schedule building is situated within the jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court and the defendant is conducting business within the
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

For the reasons stated above and for other reasons that may be permitted to

be raised at the time of hearing it is prayed that it may please this

Honourable Court to:

(a) Pass a decree for an amount of Rs 7,06,866.00 inclusive of arrears of

rent from November 2010 to July 2011 and also the loss suffered
due to absence of TDS certificates for the financial years 2009-
2010 and 2010-2011.

(b) Pass a decree directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule
premises and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff.

(c) Grant such other reliefs this Honourable Court shall deem fit.

Dated this the day of August, 2011.

Plaintiff

Counsel for the Plaintiff

 VALUATION
Valuation FOR RELIEF (A)
Amount claimed : Rs 7,54,744.00
Court fee paid under Sec 22 , Art I,
Sch I of the Kerala Court Fees and
Suits Valuation Act. : Rs. 73,875.00
Valuation for relief (b) is valued at Rs 1,000/-

Court fee to be paid under Sec 27 of the

Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act : Rs 40/-

Total court fee to be paid : Rs 73,915.00

One tenth court fee paid at the time
Of filing : Rs 7392.00

Dated this the day of August, 2011

Counsel for the Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

I, Krishna Kumar.J.Shah, Aged 54 years, S/o Jayanthilal.J.Shah, residing at 4A,

Girinagar Garden Apartments, Girinagar Link Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin 20.
who is the Constituted Attorney for and on behalf of the plaintiff firm, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state that all that has been stated in the plaint above are true
to the best of my knowledge, faith and belief.

Dated this the day of August,2011.

Plaintiff
Counsel for the plaintiff.
 List of documents

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl No: Description of the document Executed by Nature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lease deed dated 11.11.61 Cochin Port Trust Notarized

Copy

2. Renewal letter dtd 16.6.97 “ Notarized copy

3. Acceptance letter dtd 23.10.00 Defendant to

the plaintiff Notarized
Copy

4. Lawyer notice dtd 7.3.10 plaintiff to the def. Office Copy

5. Lawyer notice dtd 14.6.2010 -do- Office copy with

acknowledgement
card

6. Lawyer notice dtd 9.11.2010 -do- Office Copy with

Acknowledgement
Card

7. Lawyer notice dtd .1.2..2011 -do- office copy

8. Acknowledgement dtd 3.2.2011 defendant to the plaintiff Acknowledgement

Card(Original)

9. Power of attorney dtd 21.7.2011 Original

Dated this the day of August, 2011.

Plaintiff
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S, KOCHI

O.S.No. /2011

M/S Bhansali and Company,

54-EZra street, Calcutta.700001
- Plaintiff

Vs

Prakson Estates and Industries

. - Defendant

AFFIDAVIT

I, Krishna Kumar.J.Shah, Aged 54 years, S/o Jayanthilal.J.Shah, residing at 4A,

Girinagar Garden Apartments, Girinagar Link Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin 20.
who is the Constituted Attorney for and on behalf of the plaintiff firm, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows:

The above suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant on the grounds of
bonafide need of the plaintiff as well as for arrears of rent from November, 2010 till
august 2011 and also for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the non
receipt of TDS certificates. As per S.R.O. 923/75, the buildings owned by the
Cochin Port Trust within the State are exempted from all the provisions of the
Kerala Building and Lease Rent Control Act. As per S.R.O. 167/77, the
Government of Kerala has exempted buildings constructed by licensees and lessees
of the Cochin Port Trust on lands belonging to the said Trust from the purview of
Kerala Building and Lease Rent Control Act. The plaintiff firm is the lessee of the
Cochin port trust by the lease deed dated 11.11.1961. The plaint scheduled
premises was taken on lease for a period of 30 years by the plaintiff firm and the
lease was subsequently extended for a further period of 30 years for 7.8.1991 to
6.8.2021. Due to the exemption provisions mentioned above, the plaintiff is
constrained to file the suit.
All that has been stated in the plaint and the documents produced are true to the
best of my knowledge, faith and belief.

Dated this the day of August, 2011.

Deponent.

Deponent literate having understood the contents of the affidavit, solemnly

affirmed and signed before me on this the day of August, 2011.

Advocate

.
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, KOCHI

I.A.No. /2011

in

O.S.No. /2011

M/S Bhansali and Company,

54-EZra street, Calcutta.700001
- Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs

Prakson Estates and Industries

- Respondent/Defendant

A F F ID A V I T

I, Krishna Kumar.J.Shah, Aged 54 years, S/o Jayanthilal.J.Shah, residing at 4A,

Girinagar Garden Apartments, Girinagar Link Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin 20.
who is the Constituted Attorney for and on behalf of the plaintiff firm, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows:

The above suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant on the grounds of
bonafide need of the plaintiff as well as for arrears of rent from November, 2010 till
August 2011 and also for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the non
receipt of TDS certificates. I am producing 9 documents along with the plaint.
Documents No:1-3 are notarized copies. I shall produce the original at the time of
evidence. Documents No: 4-7 are office copies of the lawyer notices and the
originals are with the defendant. Document No: 8 and 9 are produced in original. It
is therefore prayed that it may please this Honourable Court to accept the
documents 1-7 to file failing which I will be put to irreparable loss and injury. A
separate petition is being filed herewith.
All that has been stated above and the documents produced are true to the best of
my knowledge, faith and belief.

Dated this the day of August, 2011.

Deponent.
Deponent literate having understood the contents of the affidavit, solemnly
affirmed and signed before me on this the day of August, 2011.

Advocate
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, KOCHI

I.A. No. /2011

in

O.S.No. /2011

Petitioner/Plaintiff:

M/S Bhansali and Company,

54-EZra street, Calcutta.700001
A registered co-partnership firm
Represented by Krishna Kumar.J.Shah,
Aged 54 years,
S/o Jayanthilal.J.Shah, residing at
4A, Girinagar Garden Apartments,
Girinagar Link Road, Kadavanthara,
Cochin 20.

Vs

Respondent/ Defendant

Prakson Estates and Industries

Parkson house, CWC Buildings
G.V. Iyer road, Willington Island
Kochi.

PETITION FILED UNDER SEC 151 C.P.C.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to accept the photocopies of the Documents
1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 produced along with the plaint.

Dated this the day of August, 2011.

Counsel for the petitioner.