Punjab National Bank vs Ajit Prasad & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5972 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           RFA No.407/2011

%                                                    7th December, 2011

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                                 ..... Appellant
                 Through:                Ms. Tarannum Ansari, Adv.


                      Versus


AJIT PRASAD & ORS                                    ..... Respondents

                            Through:     None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA



    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. No one appears for the respondents although they have been

served. I have heard counsel for the appellant and after perusing the Trial

Court record, am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned

judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 2.4.2011 decreeing the suit of

the respondents/landlords for mesne profits at `67/- per square feet.

3. The admitted facts are that the appellant/bank became a tenant

in the suit premises being the ground floor of A-10, G.T.Road, Adarsh

Nagar, Delhi-33 by means of two lease deeds dated 17.9.1998 and

15.12.1999, for a total period of 10 years, i.e. original period of 5 years and

one extension of 5 years. The period of leases expired on 31.12.2007 and

30.6.2009. The parties entered into negotiations for renewal of the leases,

however, nothing came out of it in spite of the appellant/bank agreeing to

pay `67/- per square feet per month, and which was intimated to the

respondents by the appellant vide its letter dated 6.5.2009.

4. The contention of the appellant/defendant before the Trial

Court, and as also argued before me is that the fresh lease deed could not be

entered into because of default on the part of the respondents/landlords and

therefore the respondents/landlords are only entitled to the admitted rate of

rent.

5. It is trite that once a lease deed expires by efflux of time, there

is no need to serve a notice terminating the tenancy. In fact, even if an

option is exercised, unless a lease deed is executed and registered for the

additional period, there is no entitlement of a tenant to stay in a premises-

see Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. Vs. Hede and Company, 2007 (5) SCC 614.

Also, mere acceptance of rent is no assent to the continuation of the tenancy

vide Shanti Prasad vs. Shankar Mahato, 2005 (5) SCC 543 (para 18 of the

judgment), and, Sarup Singh vs. Jagdish Singh, 2006 (4) SCC 205 (para 8

of the judgment).

6. The appellant/bank admittedly stayed in the premises till

10.6.2010. Issue therefore is the charges which would be payable by the

appellant/bank to the respondents/landlords with effect from 1.1.2008 and

1.7.2009. The Trial Court has held that since there was no lease deed, and

the appellant admittedly stayed in the premises till 10.6.2010, therefore, for

this period mesne profits would be payable. I may note that the written

statement of the appellant/bank does not show any defence of a specific

tenancy after expiry of the original leases, nor was pointed out to me by

counsel for the appellant during hearing, except the stand that the leases in

question could not be executed on account of default of the

respondents/landlords.

7. In view of the facts which have emerged in the present case

of the appellant/bank itself vide letter dated 6.5.2009 having agreed to

pay `67/- per square feet, the Trial Court, in my opinion, is justified in

granting mesne profits at this rate from 1.1.2008 and 1.7.2009 respectively

till 10.6.2010.

8. No other issue is pressed or urged before this Court.

9. The appeal therefore, being without any merit, is accordingly

dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 07, 2011 ak