Delhi High Court
Sh. Harbans Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India on 30 August, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.322/2002
% 30th August, 2011
SH. HARBANS SINGH & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. H.L.Narula, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the 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?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the
impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.2002 whereby the Trial Court has
granted mesne profits only at Rs.10,000/- per month for the period from
1.8.1997 to 28.2.2001 although the appellants/landlords/plaintiffs proved the
lease agreement dated 24.11.1997, Ex.PW1/1 with respect to a premises
within the same area by which rent as on 24.11.1997 was Rs.1,20,000/- and
that too with respect to a premises of about 2,500 square feet whereas the
suit premises had an area of 4327 sq. feet.
RFA No.322/2002 Page 1 of 5
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has argued that the
Trial Court has committed a clear cut illegality and perversity in totally
overlooking this lease agreement, Ex.PW1/1 and granting mesne profits at
only Rs.10,000/- per month, simply on the ground that the
respondent/UOI/defendant was not running any profit making venture and
was performing a sovereign function. It is argued that this logic and
rationale of the Trial Court is quite clearly fallacious because there is no law
that the normal law of land does not apply to the UOI. I to an extent agree
with the arguments as advanced by counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in
terms of what I am stating below.
3. The subject property is property bearing no.3-E/5, Jhandewalan
Extension, New Delhi admeasuring 4,327 square feet. The evidence of the
lease agreement, Ex.PW1/1, is with respect to a premises bearing no. 4-E/1,
Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi of an area of 2,500 square feet. The
period in question in the present case is from 1.8.1997 to 28.2.2001 and
therefore the lease deed, Ex.PW1/1 is clearly a relevant piece of evidence
being with respect to the same area and same period and which has been
perversely ignored by the Trial Court simply on the ground that UOI was
performing a sovereign function. I agree with the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellants that there is no law which prohibits grant of
market rate of rent as mesne profits merely because the
respondent/defendant is UOI.
RFA No.322/2002 Page 2 of 5
4. However, the issue would be what should be the mesne profits
which should be awarded. On the one hand, though the appellants had led
evidence on lease agreement, Ex.PW1/1, however, no evidence has been led
with respect to the similarity between two premises, i.e. its condition, age,
its location and so on. Therefore, the lease agreement Ex.PW1/1 can act
only as a reasonable guide to grant of mesne profits.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the lease deed,
Ex.PW1/1 was for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with respect to an area of
2,500 square feet and since the subject premises were of 4,327 square feet,
the appellants should be held entitled to at least Rs.2,50,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the respondent however argued that the appellants have
failed to prove any similarities between the subject premises and the
premises being the subject matter of the lease agreement, Ex.PW1/1 and
therefore an amount of Rs,2,50,000/- is quite clearly unjustified.
6. I partially agree with the arguments as raised by counsel for the
appellants and also partially agree with the arguments as advanced by
counsel for the respondent. A heavy onus is therefore put on the Court to
decide that what should be the rate of mesne profits for the period from
1.8.1997 to 28.2.2001. In view of the lease agreement, Ex. PW1/1, existing
on record but also considering that there are other shortcomings in the
evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs/landlords on account of lack of evidence
as to the age, condition and locations of the two premises, in the facts and
RFA No.322/2002 Page 3 of 5
circumstances of the present case however since the lease agreement
dated, Ex. PW1/1 is for the very same area, I feel that in overall facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellants should be entitled to mesne profits
at Rs.1,50,000/- per month for the period from 1.8.1997 to 28.2.2001
inasmuch as the lease agreement, Ex.PW1/1 gives a rent of Rs.1,20,000/- for
an area of 2,500 square feet whereas the subject premises comprises of an
area of 4,327 square feet. The area of 4,327 square feet is almost 80% more
than the area of 2,500 square feet which is the subject matter of the lease
agreement, Ex. PW1/1. There has to be some honest and genuine guess
work in these type of cases with respect to determining the rate of mesne
profits. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore the rate of rent
at Rs.1,50,000/- per month will serve the ends of justice and I refuse to grant
the rate of rent at Rs.2,50,000/- per month, which of course on mathematical
equation can be claimed by the appellants in view of the comparative areas
of two premises, however, as stated, above, other aspects with respect to
condition, age and location viz-a-viz two premises have not been proved by
the appellants.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by holding that the
appellants will be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- from
1.8.1997 to 28.2.2001. The appellants will also be entitled to pendent lite
and future interest at 6% per annum simple on the amount due as on the
RFA No.322/2002 Page 4 of 5
date of decree till the amount is paid by the respondent to the appellants.
Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.
AUGUST 30, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
