Full Text
RFA 565/2010
Date of Decision: 20th September, 2011 SANJEEV GUPTA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Rakesh Kansal, Adv.
Through : Mr. N.P. Gaur, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 22nd April, 2010 whereby the suit for recovery was dismissed by the learned Trial Court with cost of `50,000/-.
2. The appellants are the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in respect of the properties bearing No.M-35, M-84 and M-86, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The appellants have paid the Service Tax and are claiming the same from the respondent on the ground that under para 7, the respondent is liable to pay the property tax. 2011:DHC:4843 RFA No.565/2010
3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the property tax mentioned in para 7 be interpreted to include the Service Tax.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived in as much as the property tax cannot be interpreted to include the Service Tax. In that view of the matter, the appellant has no right to recover the Service Tax from the respondent.
5. The learned Trial Court has imposed cost of `50,000/- on the appellants out of which the appellants have deposited cost of `5,000/- with Delhi Legal Services Authority.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the cost of `50,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Court is reduced to `5,000/-.
7. All pending applications are disposed of. J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 mk