Delhi High Court
M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Cinerama Private Ltd. on 18 May, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
% 18th May, 2011
1. RFA No. 210/2011
M/s BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Mr. Noor Alam,
Advocates.
VERSUS
CINERAMA PRIVATE LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naveen Kr. Chaudhary and Mr. Shiv
B. Chetry, Advocates.
2. RFA No. 212/2011
M/s BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Mr. Noor Alam,
Advocates.
VERSUS
CINERAMA PRIVATE LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naveen Kr. Chaudhary and Mr. Shiv
B. Chetry, Advocates.
3. RFA No. 213/2011
M/s BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Mr. Noor Alam,
Advocates.
VERSUS
RFA 210/2011 & conn. Page 1 of 6
CINERAMA PRIVATE LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naveen Kr. Chaudhary and Mr. Shiv
B. Chetry, Advocates.
4. RFA No. 209/2011
M/s BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Mr. Noor Alam,
Advocates.
VERSUS
CINERAMA PRIVATE LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naveen Kr. Chaudhary and Mr. Shiv
B. Chetry, Advocates.
5. RFA No. 211/2011
M/s BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Mr. Noor Alam,
Advocates.
VERSUS
CINERAMA PRIVATE LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naveen Kr. Chaudhary and Mr. Shiv
B. Chetry, Advocates.
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?
RFA 210/2011 & conn. Page 2 of 6
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
RFA No.210/2011 & CM No. 7344/2011 (Stay) & 7872/2011 (Cross objections)
RFA No.212/2011 & CM No. 7352/2011 (Stay) & 7866/2011 (Cross objections)
RFA No.213/2011 & CM No. 7360/2011 (Stay) & 7932/2011 (Cross objections)
RFA No.209/2011 & CM No. 7329/2011 (Stay) & 7896/2011 (Cross objections)
RFA No.211/2011 & CM No. 7348/2011 (Stay) & 7891/2011 (Cross objections)
1. The challenge by means of these appeals and the cross objections,
filed by both parties to the suit, is to certain limited aspects of the impugned
judgment and decree of possession with mesne profits and interest. The
appellant/defendant claims that firstly it should not be held liable to pay
interest on arrears of rent and secondly that the mesne profits which have
been awarded from 14.2.2007 to 31.7.2007 be reduced to Rs.95 per sq. ft.
from Rs.125 per sq. ft. The cross objector/respondent/plaintiff on the other
hand relying upon the lease deed Ex.PW2/2, which is a registered lease deed
for the same building of November, 2007, prays for enhancement in the rate
of mesne profits for the period 14.2.2007 to 31.7.2007 i.e. from the date of
termination of tenancy to the date of handing over possession.
2. So far as the relief claimed by the appellant that no interest should at
all be payable, I find that the prayer is misconceived because to the extent
monies/amounts are not paid when due to a due person, the same results in
a loss to the person entitled to such monies towards interest which would
have been earned if the monies would have been paid on time to the person.
Looking at the aspect in another manner since the monies remained in the
RFA 210/2011 & conn. Page 3 of 6
pocket of the appellant it would have earned interest on these amounts and
thus it is logical that they return such benefit to the respondent/landlord.
That interest ought to be paid on the arrears of rent is also now statutorily
recognized vide Section 26 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 wherein, the
rate of interest of 15% per annum is payable on the arrears of rent. The
Supreme Court has also been granting interest on the arrears of rent/mesne
profits which are decreed and one such judgment is the decision in the case
of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Saroj Baweja 2005 (12) SCC 298.
Accordingly, considering the provision of Section 26 of the Delhi Rent Control
Act and the decision in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra), I find
that the trial court was completely justified in granting interest on that
portion of the rent which was not paid on the respective due dates.
3. Related to this aspect of payment of interest is the prayer of the
appellant that since rate of interest at 9% per annum has been awarded
after termination of tenancy on the mesne profits awarded, it is this same
rate which ought to have been awarded even for the prior period. I find
strength in this argument inasmuch as the Supreme Court in the recent
chain of judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v.
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others,
2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co.
Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700 & Krishna
RFA 210/2011 & conn. Page 4 of 6
Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 and
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3
Arb. LR 140 (SC) has held that the courts must take note of the changed
economic scenario and the consistent fall in the rates of interest, and ought
not to grant high rates of interest. I, therefore, feel that the appeals should
be partially allowed by modifying the rate of interest which was granted at
12% per annum from 13.12.2007 by reducing the same to 9% per annum
simple and which rate will serve the ends of justice. It is clarified that rate of
interest of 9% per annum simple on the damages in any case will also be
payable to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment and decree
for the period after termination of tenancy.
4. So far as the claim of the appellant for reduction in the rate of mesne
profits is concerned to Rs.95 per sq. ft, instead of 125 per sq. ft., this issue
can be dealt with along with the cross objections inasmuch as in the cross
objections, the respondent/plaintiff has prayed for a higher rate of mesne
profits. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my
attention to Ex.PW2/2, which is a registered lease deed for the same
premises, viz. Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and as per
which in November 2007 the rate of rent of Rs. 295/- per sq. ft. has been
fixed. If therefore the rate of rent contractually is proved to be Rs.295/- in
November, 2007 the trial court thus ought not to have reduced the rate of
mesne profits to 125 per sq. ft. for the near period of February to July 2007
RFA 210/2011 & conn. Page 5 of 6
although the trial court had itself relied upon lease deed Ex.PW2/2. Surely, it
cannot be said that the contractual rent would be Rs.295/- per sq. ft. per
month in November 2007, but for a few months before it would only be 125
sq. ft. per month i.e. from February to July 2007. Even if, I consider a
substantial increase in rate of rent, i.e.33% in one year, and considering that
the contractual rent is Rs.295 per sq. ft. per month in November, 2007, the
rate of rent/mesne profits should be at least Rs.200 per sq. ft per month from
February, 2007 to July, 2007. Accordingly, I partly accept the cross
objections and enhance the rate of mesne profits from 14.2.2007 to
31.7.2007 to Rs.200 per sq. ft per month.
5. The appeals and the cross objections are disposed of by reducing the
rate of interest of 12% per annum to 9% per annum from 13.12.2004 to
12.2.2007 and increasing the rate of mesne profits from 14.2.2007 to
31.7.2007, to Rs.200 per sq. ft. per month. Rest of the judgment will operate
as it is. Decree sheet be prepared. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
May 18, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
