Delhi High Court
Haryana State Co-Operative ... vs B.S.Bedi & Anr. on 21 October, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 21.10.2010
+ R.S.A.No.39/2002 & C.M.Appls.634/2003, 12236/2004 &
5868/2007
HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY
& MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. & ANR.
...........Appellants
Through: Mr.Ashok Bhasin, Sr.Advocate
With Mr.Sunklan and
Ms.Shuchismita Ojha,
Advocates.
Versus
B.S.BEDI & ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: Mr.Rohit K.Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated
28.11.2001 whereby the first appellate court had granted damages
to the plaintiff B.S.Bedi of the suit property at the rate of Rs.30/-
per sq. ft. along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This
impugned judgment had modified the finding of the trial judge
dated 27.7.1999 who had awarded damages at the rate of Rs.14/-
per sq. ft. along with interest of 18% per annum.
2. It is not in dispute that the possession of the suit property
having a covered area of 626 sq. ft. in flat no.201, Bakshi House,
40-41, Nehru Place, Delhi has since been handed over to the
plaintiff. Only dispute is with regard to the quantum of the mense
RSA No.39/2002 Page 1 of 4
profits which had been awarded to the respondent.
3. This is a second appeal. Appeal has been admitted on
28.7.2003. On 1.9.2010, the following substantial question of law
had been formulated which inter alia reads as under:
"Whether the findings in the impugned judgment dated
28.11.2001 are perverse qua the rate of damages/msne
profits granted in favour of the respondent?"
4. PW-1 had proved the registered lease deed dated 25.2.1993
Ex.PW1/1. As per this document the rate of rent in the vicinity of
similar properties was Rs.45/- per sq. ft.. PW-5 was an attesting
witness to this document. PW-3 had entered the witness box to
prove another lease deed which was of the year 1996 Ex.PW3/1
where the rate of rent in the vicinity was of Rs.50/- per sq. ft. PW-4
was an attesting witness to this document. PW-6 was a retired
executive engineer of the CPWD. He had deposed that in the year
1993 rate of rent of similar properties was Rs.30 to 35/- per month.
On the date of deposition of this witness which was in the year
1999 the rate of rent would be Rs.70/- per sq. ft. It was this oral
and documentary evidence which had led the two courts below to
hold that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit at the rate of
Rs.14/- sq.ft. Appellate court had however re-appreciated this
evidence and enhanced the mesne profit from Rs.14 to Rs.30/- per
sq.ft. Rate of interest which had awarded by the trial court at the
rate of 18% was however reduced to 12% per annum.
5. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the lease initially started at the rate of Rs.3.10 per
sq. ft.; it was enhanced to Rs.4.25/- and then to Rs.5.37 and lastly
to Rs.6.17/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
that this was an arbitrary exercise of power by the first appellate
RSA No.39/2002 Page 2 of 4
court and the mesne profit awarded at such an exorbitant amount
of Rs.30/- is not in consonance with the evidence led before this
court is a misunderstood argument. Admittedly, the lease at the
rate of Rs.3.10 per sq. ft. had commenced in the year 1977. Both
the oral and documentary evidence clearly evidence that the
properties in the neighbourhood in the year 1993 were fetching
rent of more than Rs.30/- per sq.ft.; another property was also
fetching rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. Testimony of these
witnesses could not be tarnished. Defendant has not led any
evidence on this score. At this stage, counsel for the appellant
states that a property in the neighbouring vicinity which had been
taken on lease by the appellant in the year 1993 was taken on lease
at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq. ft.; admittedly, this lease deed had not
seen the light of the day before both the courts below. Such a
document cannot be looked into at the second appellate stage.
6. The second appellate court is not a third fact finding court.
It is only on a substantial question of law that this court can
interfere. Otherwise, the hands of this court are tied. The evidence
on record both oral and documentary has duly supported the stand
taken in the impugned judgment which calls for no interference. It,
in no manner, can be said to be a perverse finding. The finding is
based on cogent, oral and documentary evidence led before it. The
appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have pointed out
that the decreetal amount has since been deposited with the
Registrar General of this court which is lying in an FDR. On
8.3.2007, 15% of the amount had been permitted to be withdrawn.
Since the appeal stands dismissed, the amount lying deposited in
RSA No.39/2002 Page 3 of 4
the FDR be released to the respondent forthwith. It is pointed out
by learned counsel for the parties that only the principal amount
had been deposited; respondent states that he is not pressing his
claim to any additional amount by way of interest at the rate of
12% per annum in terms of the impugned judgment.
8. With these directions, the appeal as also the pending
applications is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 21, 2010
rb
