Delhi High Court
M/S. Fair Financial Services Pvt. ... vs Smt. Seema Grover on 29 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.186/2011
% 29th March, 2011
M/S. FAIR FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate with Ms.
Monika Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. SEEMA GROVER ...... Respondent
Through: None.
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)
C.M. No.6258/2011 (condonation of delay) in RFA No.186/2011
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 5 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
+ RFA No.186/2011
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the
impugned judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010 whereby the suit of
the respondent/plaintiff/landlady has been decreed for possession and
RFA No.186/2011 Page 1 of 4
mesne profits with respect to the tenanted premises being Shop No.3,
Ground floor, Aggarwal Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
2. It is not disputed that there is a relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and that the monthly rent was Rs.37,500/-.
Since the rent is more than Rs.3500/- the premises does not have
protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The lease which was
granted through a registered deed dated 5.8.2008 was for a period of
two years and which tenancy came to an end with the efflux of time on
the expiry of two years. In such circumstances, the
respondent/landlady was not even required to send a notice
terminating tenancy, however, ex abundant cautela, a notice dated
14.5.2010 was served upon the appellant asking the appellant to
vacate the premises.
3. In view of the above, I find that there were no disputed
questions of facts, either with regard to the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties, the rent being more than Rs.3,500/- and
the tenancy having come to an end by efflux of time whereby the
appellant was bound to vacate the tenanted premises. The decree for
possession was thus rightly passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial
Court has committed an error in awarding mesne profits @ 10% over
the agreed rate of rent because the respondent/landlady herself made
a statement on 22.11.2010 restricting the claim to the agreed rate of
rent. A first reading of the statement of the landlady recorded on
RFA No.186/2011 Page 2 of 4
22.11.2010 seems to suggest so, however, when we read the entire
statement, it becomes clear that the respondent also had prayed that
necessary damages be awarded which is in the discretion, of the Court.
It is, therefore, using this judicial discretion that the trial Court has
awarded damages @ 10% more than the agreed rate of rent. The
agreed rate of rent was of the year 2008 and the trial Court was
therefore fully justified in taking judicial notice of the increase in the
rent and awarding 10% more than the agreed rent from July, 2010. A
Division Bench of this Court in its decision reported as S.Kumar Vs.
G.R. Kathpalia 1999 RLR 114 has held that the Courts can take
judicial notice of increase of rent. The trial Court was therefore
justified in passing the decree for mesne profits @ 10% higher than the
agreed rate of rent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the decree
for mesne profits has been passed although the respondent has not
paid the Court fee and nor any direction has been issued with respect
to payment of Court fee. To the extent that the respondent/landlady
will be liable to pay additional Court fee for the pendente lite mesne
profits, cannot be doubted and it is therefore clarified that the trial
Court will draw up a decree for pendente lite mesne profits and till
recovery of possession only on the respondent/landlady paying the
Court fee for the mesne profits awarded.
RFA No.186/2011 Page 3 of 4
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal
which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
Caveat No.267/2011 in RFA No.186/2011
No one appears for the caveator. Since the appeal has
been dismissed, the caveat stands discharged.
C.M. No.6257/2011 (stay) in RFA No.186/2011
Since the main appeal is dismissed, no orders are required
to be passed in this application which is disposed of as such.
MARCH 29, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
