•This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,13,125/-.

The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that in April

1983, defendant represented to the plaintiff that the defendant was the owner of the
premises known as Pawan House located at Plot No. 2. Zamrudpur Community Center,
Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi.

•Defendant made an offer to the plaintiff to demise and grant the said premises on lease
to the plaintiff on certain terms and conditions and thereafter from time to time various
negotiations took place between the parties in connection with the said premises.

•It was pleaded that in course of the said negotiations, on or about August 6, 1983, the
plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the defendant as token money pending finalisation
of the agreement and/or lease relating to the premises and the said loan was accepted by
the defendant subject to the finalisation of the lease deed as per its terms and conditions.

•Plaintiff discovered that the representation made by the defendant was untrue and in
that there were serious and material defects in the title of the defendant to the premises
inasmuch as it was found that the defendant was not the owner of the premises and had
no right or authority as he could not furnish to the plaintiff Completion Certificate or
Occupation Certificate and other certificates necessary and required under the law and
the prevailing
•October 27, 1983, the plaintiff called off the negotiations between the parties in respect of
the premises and demanded from the defendant the refund of the said amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- and by letter dated November 17/18, 1983, the plaintiff gave notice to the
defendant under the Interest Act, 1978.

•The defendant is legally bound to refund the said amount claiming interest @ 21% per annum
from August 1983. Plaintiff claims Rs. 1, 13,125 / - from the defendant.

•On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant had never represented to the plaintiff that the
defendant was the owner of the property in question and that the plaintiff, in fact, all along
knew that M/s. Pawan Builders Private Limited, a sister concern of the defendant company,
has been and is the owner of the property in question and the defendant has been authorised
by the said owner to lease out the property and that even M/s. Pawan Builders Private Limited
had been communicating with the plaintiff with regard to the agreement of lease.

•Then, it is pleaded that the defendant was the promoter of the building and was authorised
to let out the building and the plaintiff was all along aware of this authority and after certain
negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant for taking the said property on lease for
a period of three years, the plaintiff dated August 5, 1983, agreed to take the premises on
lease for a monthly rent of Rs. 78,000/- and the tenancy was to commence with effect from
September 1, 1983, and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance towards rent for
the premises by way of cheque on dated August 5,1983.
•Plaintiff had required the defendant to sign the said letter and return the same to the
plaintiff in token of its acceptance which was returned to the plaintiff after signing.

• It is then pleaded that the defendant vide its letter dated August 25, 1983, also
informed the plaintiff that the premises were complete in all respects and ready for
possession and the plaintiff should take possession of the said premises on September 1,
1983, after executing the lease agreement.

•Firm agreement was entered into between the parties and the plaintiff was supposed to
take possession of the premises but the plaintiff did not occupy the premises and the
same remained vacant till December 15, 1983, subjecting the defendant to a loss of Rs.
78,000/- per month with effect from September 1, 1983 and the defendant claimed Rs.
1,93,760/- from the plaintiff as counterclaim after adjusting Rs. 1,00,000/- already
received.

•Defendant denied that Rupees 1,00,000/- was received as token money and pleaded
that the same was received as advance to be adjusted in rent.
•Defendants further pleaded that the premises were ready for occupation as all necessary
sanitary and electrical works had been completed and necessary forms 'C' & 'D' issued by
the concerned authorities were duly inspected by the plaintiff before the plaintiff issued the
letter dated August 5, 1983 and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the defendant.

•It is pleaded that there was no requirement of DDA to obtain any Completion Certificate
before occupying the premises and in fact, more than 75% of the commercial buildings in
Delhi are awaiting issuance of completion certificates by the DDA and are being occupied by
the people without any Occupancy Certificates.

•It is pleaded that the plaintiff as an afterthought was raising objections regarding the
Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate in order to wriggle out of the contract
already made between the parties.

•It is further pleaded that the defendant had already given to the plaintiff a copy of the
resolution of M/s. Pawan Builders Private Limited which authorises the defendant to lease
the property in question and the plaintiff has illegally declined to occupy the premises on
the basis of the concluded contract and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to refund of Rs.
1,00,000/-- or any interest over it and 'in fact, the defendant is entitled to recover Rs.
1,93,760/-
It is evident from the bare perusal of Ex. P 19
receipt that the sum of Rs. I lakh was paid only
as token money and was not given as advance
rent. It was to take the shape of part of the
advance rent