Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Shri Brij Bhushan Sharan & Ors. on 19 November, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.411/2007
Date of decision: 19th November, 2008
%
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Bhaskar Tiwari and
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advs.
versus
SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Ajant Kumar and
Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Advs.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)
RFA 411/2007 and CM No.16774/2007
1. For the period 01.09.03 to 31.03.2005 damages have
been awarded to the landlords against the tenants i.e. the
appellant @ Rs.42.50 per sqr.ft. per month.
2. The tenant is in appeal raising a grievance that the rate
awarded is excessive. The landlords are also aggrieved
evidenced by the fact that vide CM No.16774/2007 cross-
objections have been filed seeking enhancement.
3. The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge is that after the
initial lease was over, parties negotiated for rent to be
increased and at that stage the appellant offered to continue
the lease by paying a rent of Rs.40/- per sqr.ft. per month.
The landlords desired that if lease had to continue the rent
payable would be Rs.42.50 per sqr.ft. per month.
4. The learned Trial Judge has opined that from the offer of
the tenant to renew the lease @ Rs.40/- per sqr.ft. per month
is an evidence of the appellants admissions that the fair rent
as on the date in question i.e. 01.09.2003 was Rs.40/- per
sqr.ft. per month.
5. The learned Trial Judge has opined that a reasonable
rent would be Rs.42.50 per sqr.ft. per month.
6. Suffice would it be to state that in the estimation of a fair
rental or the market value of the property there is always
some element of guess work and 100% accuracy can not be
achieved.
7. Whereas the appellant offered Rs.40/- per sqr.ft. per
month, the landlords desired Rs.42.50 per sqr.ft. per month.
The gap is narrow.
8. As long as there is no perversity or a gross illegality or a
miscarriage of justice, merely because a reasoning of a Trial
Court does not measure up to certain requisite standards,
would be no ground to interfere in appeal.
9. Thus, we find no force in the plea of the appellant and
concur with the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge that since
the appellant had offered to renew the lease @ Rs.40 per
sqr.ft. per month fair rent would be Rs.42.50 per sqr.ft. per
month. We may only add that a presumption would arise
that the officer of the appellant who made the offer would
have surveyed the market.
10. Turning to the cross-objections. The same principle
applies against the landlord. By offering to renew the lease @
Rs.42.50 per sqr.ft. per month the landlords would also be
presumed to have surveyed the market before offering as
aforenoted.
11. The appeal as well as the cross-objections are dismissed.
12. No costs.
13. The amount deposited by the appellant, if any, be paid
over to the respondents together with the accrued interest, if
any.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2008
aj
