* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.601/2003
% 4th January, 2012
UNITED BANK OF INDIA ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankul Nagpal , Adv.
VERSUS
SMT. SHAKUNTALA YADAV ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav with
Ms. Ruchira, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 19.4.2003, and by which judgment, the Trial Court has awarded mesne profits at Rs.25/- per square feet for the period from 1.10.1997 till 31.12.2003 against the appellant-defendant/tenant. RFA No.601/2003 Page 1 of 5
2. There is no dispute that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also not disputed on behalf of the appellant that the tenancy was terminated by means of a legal notice dated 3.9.1997, Ex.PW1/2 whereby the tenancy was terminated with effect from 1.10.1997.
3. The premises in question in the present case are ground floor and first floor of the premises bearing no.A-24, Tagore Marg, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. The area of the tenanted premises is 2886 square feet.
4. Before the Trial Court, the respondent/landlord led evidence in the form of a lease deed executed between Bank of Baroda and its landlord with respect to a premises No. 9, LSC Kirti Nagar, Delhi, i.e. in around the same area where the tenanted premises are located. The tenanted premises as also the premises which were the subject matter of the lease deed of Bank of Baroda with its landlord, Ex.PW2/3 were thus both situated in the same Kirti Nagar Area. Whereas the premises of the respondent is on the main road, the premises taken by Bank of Baroda under the lease deed dated Ex.PW2/3 is admittedly not on the main road. Mesne profits in this case have to be calculated from 1.10.1997 to 31.12.2003 and therefore, for determining the mesne profits, what are the mesne profits which would be prevalent in around October, 1997 would be an issue. The lease deed Ex.PW2/3 is of the year RFA No.601/2003 Page 2 of 5 1995, i.e. about 2 years prior to the period commencing from which the mesne profits have to be calculated.
5. The Trial Court has noted that rents have fallen during the relevant period, and therefore, instead of granting Rs.43/- per square feet, mesne profits have been granted at Rs.25/- per square feet. In every case of determination of mesne profits, some amount of honest guess work is always involved. Obviously, there cannot be complete exactness of evidence led with respect to rate of rents/mesne profits, and the Courts have to make a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence which is led before it. I have already stated above that the suit premises are situated on the main road, and surely, premises on the main road have far higher rents than premises located in the interiors.
6. I therefore do not feel that the Trial Court has committed any illegality or perversity in granting mense profits at Rs.25/- per square feet and therefore there is no ground for interference in this appeal so far as the awarding of the rate of mesne profits are concerned. In fact I find that the Trial Court has been more than liberal to the appellant/bank inasmuch as the rate of mesne profits should ordinarily undergo an increase each year, however, the rate of mesne profits which has been granted continues to be for RFA No.601/2003 Page 3 of 5 a fixed amount for the entire period from 1.10.1997 to 31.12.2003, i.e. a period of about 6 years.
7. At this stage, it is however necessary to point out a seeming illegality in the impugned judgment which allows interest at 9% per annum pendent lite and future till realization. I may note that the suit has been filed on 20th October, 1997 and therefore there would hardly be any mense profits which would be payable with respect to the pre suit period. The mesne profits have only accumulated pendent lite and till 31.12.2003 when the premises were vacated. Therefore it cannot be said that interest at 9% per annum can be granted on the total amount of the money decree on mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit. Obviously, interest has to be calculated only from the end of the month for which the mesne profits became payable. Learned counsel for the respondent could not very seriously dispute this illegal position. I therefore clarify the impugned judgment by observing that when the Trial Court has granted interest at 9% per annum pendent lite and future, interest will only be calculated from the end of the month from which the mesne profits would be payable, and it will not be that interest will be paid from the date of filing of the suit on the total amount of mesne profits decreed.
8. In view of the above, the appeal, subject to the above RFA No.601/2003 Page 4 of 5 clarification, is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record be sent back.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JANUARY 04, 2012 ak RFA No.601/2003 Page 5 of 5