D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THIS appeal filed by the defendant-appellant is directed against the judgment dated 12-1-1999 and its corresponding decree dated 18-1- 1999, passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Chaibasa in Money Suit No. 1 of 1995, whereby the suit filed for realization of a sum of Rs. 20.60 lakhs, was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case briefly stated is that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, while the defendant is a body corporate dealing in storage and distribution of food grains. The defendant is required to stock its food grains in godowns. Being in need of a spacious premises for godown purposes for storage of food grains, the defendant had approached the plaintiff and had offered to take the plaintiff's premises on rent. Vide letter of offer (Annexure-1), the defendant had asked the plaintiffs to construct a godown within its premises according to specifications designed and mentioned in the said letter. The plaintiff had accepted the offer of the defendant to rent out its premises after constructing the godown besides other structures as required by the defendant and the monthly rent was fixed @ 0.22 paise per square feet. The plaintiff had invested substantial amount of money for constructing the godown besides one double storied building with rooms and the entire premises bearing Municipal Holding No. 6/134 consisting of big rooms/halls, open verandahs, open space, situated at Chakradharpur, was let out to the defendant in the year 1976. The monthly rent was enhanced two years later from 0.22 paise to 0.32 paise per square feet. The total built up area, which came into the occupation of the defendant was 9.415.71 square feet and the total rent for the premises payable per month according to English Calendar, was Rs. 3,013.32 Paise. A deed of lease was executed by and between the parties for a limited period up to 30-6-1981. However, the defendant became defaulter and failed to pay the monthly rents. The period of lease was not extended beyond 30-6-1981, the plaintiff had also needed the premises for its own use and, therefore a legal notice was served upon the defendant, whereby the plaintiff had asked the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises. Upon failure to get the tenanted premises vacated, the plaintiff filed the Title (Eviction) Suit No. 2 of 1987 before the competent Court, which was ultimately decreed. In spite of decree, the defendant did not deliver the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff. Rather, the defendant preferred an appeal before the High Court vide Second Appeal No. 13 of 1993 (R), which was ultimately dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 28-7- 1993. When in spite of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the defendant did not vacate the tenanted premises, execution proceedings vide Execution Case No. 21 of 1992 was initiated by the plaintiff and in execution of the writ of delivery of possession, the said tenanted premises was ultimately got vacated by the Nazir of the civil Court and its possession was handed over to the plaintiff on 22-05-1994. On taking possession of the premises, the plaintiff found and detected that the defendant had extensively damaged the tenanted premises, rendering the constructed building into a dilapidated condition. The walls, the roofs and the floors of all the rooms were severely damaged and the plaintiff found that the defendant and its representatives caused such extensive damage intentionally and deliberately by manual operation since such extensive damages could not have resulted by usual wear and tear or by passage of time. A partner of the plaintiff's firm had specifically mentioned the extent of damage in the writ of Delivery of Possession at the time when the premises was delivered. The plaintiff's further pleading is that till the year 1986, plaintiff used to carry out the annual whitewashing and repairs and had kept the entire structures in good condition but later in between 1987 to 1994, being annoyed with the filing of the eviction suit, the defendant and its Officers had refused access to the plaintiffs to the tenanted premises. In the eviction suit, the plaintiff had taken a plea of wilful damage to the tenanted premises but since the plea was not substantiated by adequate evidence, the said plea was negated. The plaintiff thereafter obtained the services of a technical expert to access the damages and cost of its repairs and the Engineer Expert vide his Report dated 15-8-1994 (Annexure-2), assessed the cost of carrying out the repairs at Rs. 14.65 lakhs as on 15-8-1994. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs towards compensation for damages caused to the tenanted premises as the costs would increase day by day with the passage of time, besides the amount of one year's rent for the year 1994-95 and also the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, paid to the expert for his services. The plaintiff has claimed a separate sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the malicious deeds of the defendants in causing the damages. The plaintiff had made a formal demand of the money by notice dated 2-11-1994 followed by a reminder dated 18-10-1995 but the defendant did not reply to the notice and hence the suit. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statements, denying and disputing the entire claim of the plaintiffs and countering that the suit is not maintainable in its present form for the reliefs claimed and that the plaintiff has got no cause of action and also, that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, waiver, acquiescence and estoppel, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. The defendant has admitted the fact that it had taken the premises of the plaintiff on rent for its godown purposes and the tenancy had commenced from 1976. The defendant has, however, pleaded that even at the inception of the tenancy. the house and godown was not worthy for storage of foodgrains as the same was not leakproof and was worn out in a very bad condition. Yet the defendant had to take the premises on rent since no other suitable accommodation was available to it at Chakradharpur. The defendant has also claimed that the construction of the premises was not in consonance with or in conformity with the specifications, size and shape suggested by the defendant. The defendant has denied the plaintiff's claim that the premises was renovated and made according to the specifications of the defendant before handing over the same to the defendant for use. The defendant has further claimed that since 1976, the plaintiff did not conduct the annual maintenance and whitewashing of the building. The further case of the defendant is that adjacent to the building let out to the defendant, the plaintiff had established its Biscuit factory and in the first floor of the premises, the staff employed in the factory used to reside and they used to cross through the tenanted premises along the verandah. The defendants have denied to have caused any damage to the tenanted premises. The defendant has further denied the plaintiff's claim that the representatives of the plaintiff were not allowed access to the tenanted premises for conducting the annual repairs and white-washing. The defendant claimed that the damage, if any, caused was on account of neglect made by the plaintiff himself in maintaining the building and also on account of the wear and tear and by passage of time. The defendant has denied and disputed the expert's reports and the assessment of cost for repairing the purported damages. The plaintiff's claim of sum of Rs. 20.60 lakhs from the defendant has also been denied and disputed by the defendant on the ground that the same is without any basis and of no merit.
(3.) ON the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues : "(1) Is the suit as framed maintainable ? (2) Whether plaintiff has got cause of action for the suit ? (3) Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata ? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 20.60 lakhs together with interest pendente lite and future till realization at the rate of 18% per annum from the defendant or not on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? (5) Whether plaintiff has neglected the suit premises in getting the same repaired and white washed ? (6) Whether defendant has damaged the suit premises in the manner alleged by the plaintiff ? (7) To what relief or reliefs plaintiff is entitled ?" ;