The Respondent ends its summation by stating that these parties have a
genuine dispute about the rent calculations and amount due and owing, and have landed
in the Civil Court for a final resolution.
The Petitionesr, in summation, contends that the Respondent is being
disingenuous in its alleged claims of good faith by depositing the alleged sum due in
escrow. The Petitioners state that whether or not it was the original calculations under
Petitioner's "9" or the correct calculations under Respondent's "E", the sum that the
Respondent states was due and owing was not deposited in the escrow account. More
importantly, the Petitioners argue that the only difference between the chart relied upon
by the Petitioner and the chart relied upon by the Respondent is the use of the word
"chained". The Petitioner asserts that the lease agreement does not use the word
"chained" CPI and therefore, the Respondent's application of Table 24C, the chained CPI
index, is inappropriate.
The Petitioner's attorney also contends that the lease clearly states that the
fixed rent will increase each year. The attorney relies on the plain language in the lease.
She contends that the lease defines the term "fixed rent" and then states that the fixed rent
shall increase each and every year. The lease itself, it is contended, completely belies the
Respondent's argument that the rent should remain the identical fixed rent at the sum of
$225,000.00, as claimed by the Respondent.
The Petitioners also argus that the no waiver clause and no abatement clause
as described in provisions §8.8 and §9.1, respectively, preclude the
Respondents from any reduction in rent. Counsel asserts that although the Petitioners did
not collect the rent, this non-waiver clause precludes the Petitioners from waiving the