Union Of India (Uoi) vs Malvinder Singh
2007 Latest Caselaw 173 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The respondents in this appeal filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the appellants, Union of India, for use and occupation of the ground floor of the premises bearing no. J-2/23, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Vide order dated 1.10.2005 the suit was partially decreed in favor of the respondents under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and possession of the suit property was delivered to him. However the case remained pending before the learned Trial Court for determination of the mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises.

2. Title of the respondent to the property as well as right to receive the property was not disputed and as already noticed, the dispute between the parties was on a very limited issue. Thus, the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 1.10.2005 framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits and at what amount

2. Relief.

3. The plaintiff examined himself as his witness and produced on record the documents Ex.P1 to P8. In his statement it was averred that the defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,22,000/- on account of arrears of rent and the prevalent rate of rent at the time of termination of the tenancy was Rs. 70/- per square feet and on the date of recording of his statement it was Rs. 100/- per square feet and claimed the mesne profits. The appellants had written various letters to the respondent which were proved on record as Ex.P9 to P11 in regard to the claim of damages.

4. The defendants were provided opportunity to lead evidence but nothing substantial was placed by them on the Record.

5. The learned Trial Court while relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. I.S. Ratta and UCO Bank v. Kalicharan and Sons 127 (2006) DLT 21 (DB) formed the view that mesne profits are to be determined on account of wrongful continuation of occupation after termination of tenancy and should be computed at a rate which the property might have fetched at the relevant time. With these findings, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and determined the amount towards recovery of mesne profits @ Rs. 34,000/- per month for the period 1.12.2004 to 27.2.2006 with 6% pendente lite and future interest. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was not able to challenge the legality or correctness of the judgment on any cogent and plausible ground. However, by placing a letter on record he contended that the property bearing No. D-86, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi (in the same colony) was rented out by the same Department of Post Offices at a monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/- per month and as such the computation of the mesne profits @ Rs. 34,000/- by the learned Trial Court was not sustainable. We have already noticed that no such evidence was placed by the appellants before the learned Trial Court. There is no application on record for leave to lead conditional evidence. Keeping in view such callous attitude of the Union of India, the Court can hardly find any merit in this half-hearted contention raised on behalf of the appellants. Be that as it may, it may also be noted that in terms of this letter, the property measures about 100 square yards and the same was rented out somewhere in the year 2002. The area under occupation of the appellants is stated to be more than 200 square yards and the possession thereof was handed over on 27.2.2006, which would be the relevant date for determination of the rate of mesne profits.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent also brought to our notice that on 19.12.2006 the appellants had furnished an undertaking to the executing court that they would pay the amount in terms of the decree of the Court on the next date of hearing which is stated to be 18.1.2007. In any case, these are findings of fact which have been arrived at by the learned Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence. The appellants, for the reasons best known to them, failed to lead any cogent and/or proper evidence before the learned Trial Court in support of its plea. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are in conformity with the law and call for no interference. Besides, the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court would normally not be interfered with by this Court unless they were perverse in law and were based on no evidence whatsoever. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Dass Ram Lubhaya RFA No. 233/1986 decided on 09.03.2006 where the Court had discussed in the detail the law relating to interference by the Court and had referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Man Mohan Tuli etc. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and Anr. .

7. As a result of our above discussion, we dismiss this appeal in liming, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. Accordingly, CM No. 383/2007 for stay having been rendered infructuous is also dismissed as such.