Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 5144 Del
Judgement Date : 19 October, 2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.250/2010
% 19th October, 2011
M/S JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
M/S JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Punit Vinay, Advocate.
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 under
Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned
judgment of the trial Court dated 6.1.2010 whereby the issue of
entitlement of mesne profits to the appellants/landlords was decided.
By the impugned judgment, the appellants/landlords were only granted
the percentage increase in terms of the lease deed between the
parties and not the market rate of rent as mesne profits, and the latter
are therefore claimed in this appeal.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondent was a tenant of
the appellants with respect to the premises bearing No.205, 2 nd Floor,
Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi w.e.f. 7.7.2003
at a monthly rent of Rs.23,200/- per month. This tenancy although
expired by efflux of time, the same was however as a matter of
abundant caution terminated by a notice dated 15.7.2006. The
tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 31.8.2006 and therefore mesne profits
would be payable from 1.9.2006. Admittedly, the premises were
vacated on 31.8.2011 and therefore mesne profits will be payable till
31.8.2011 i.e. the period for which mesne profits are to be granted is
from 1.9.2006 to 31.8.2011. The impugned judgment, if at all the
same can be categorized as a „judgment‟, is a one paragraph judgment
which reads as under:-
"Present: Counsel for the parties.
Heard the arguments addressed on behalf of counsel for the parties on the issue "To what amount plaintiff is entitled to"? Plaintiff examined in support of its case PW-1 Shri Sunil Srivastava, LDC, Sub Registrar-VII, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi and brought on record the certified copy of lease deed Ex.PW-1/1 to PW-1/6. No evidence was lead by the defendant. It is the sole contention of counsel for defendant that as per Lease Deed executed between parties, rent was to increase by 20% after every three years. However, this lease deed is unregistered Lease Deed though relied upon by the plaintiff and can not be looked into. Hence, the certified copy Lease Deed brought on record by the plaintiff are not properly proved and executed and the same has not been examined
by the plaintiff. However, as agreed by counsel for defendant, issue for mesne profits is decided and it is held that looking into the lease for collateral purpose, whereby parties have agreed to increase or rent by 20% after every three years, plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits of Rs.23,000/- plus 20% increased per month from 1st August till July 2009 and further increase of 20% from August, 2009 till the defendant continue in possession. However, plaintiff will pay the court fees on the amount decreed in his favour. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to Record Room."
3. The facts of the case as per the record of the trial Court
shows that the appellants/landlords summoned lease deeds of different
premises situated in the same area i.e. Connaught Place, New Delhi
and proved various lease deeds Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 in order to
prove its case for mesne profits at market rate of rent.
4. It is at this stage relevant to note that whereas the
affirmative evidence was led by the appellants/landlords, no evidence
in rebuttal whatsoever was led by the respondent/tenant. Thus,
ordinarily unless there are other valid legal reasons, the affirmative
evidence of the appellants should be accepted, of course, subject to
caveat of the Court ensuring the credibility of the evidence.
5. The trial Court in the impugned judgment has refused to
refer to the certified copies of the lease deeds on the ground that the
same were not said to be properly proved and executed. On this
conclusion the trial Court is wrong because once a document is
exhibited during the course of trial in the suit, and no objection is
raised on the same at the time of exhibition of same, nothing further is
required to be done. It is not open to the opposite party subsequently
to contend that the documents were not validly exhibited. This is the
ratio of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E.
Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.
Temple 2003 (8) SCC 752. Admittedly, no objection was raised on
behalf of the respondent/tenant at the time of exhibition of these
documents and therefore the trial Court was not justified in discarding
the leased deeds in question.
6. The issue therefore is as per the evidence of the lease
deeds filed by the appellants what rate of mesne profits should be
awarded to the appellants. Out of the various lease deeds, the
relevant lease deeds are Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 being of May, 2006
and since the rent is to be proved as on 1.9.2006. The rate of rent per
square feet in the lease deed Ex.PW1/2 is Rs.140 per sq. feet. In the
lease deed Ex.PW1/3 the rate of rent is Rs.95/- per sq. feet and in the
lease deed Ex.PW1/4 it is Rs.105/- per sq. feet. Whereas the suit
premises are situated on the second floor, the lease deeds are with
respect to the premises which are situated on the 13, 12 and 11 th floor
respectively. The flats which are the subject matter of the lease deeds
Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 are in the same area where the subject/lease
premises are situated i.e. at Connaught Place, New Delhi. Since the
rent in the lease deeds vary from Rs.95/- per sq. feet to Rs.140/- per
sq. feet, I would to be on the safe side seek to take the lowest of that
figure of Rs.95/- per sq. feet so as to award such rate of mesne profits.
I am taking this lowest figure because one does not know for sure what
is the difference in the conditions with respect to the flats which are
subject matter of the lease deeds Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 as compared
to the subject flats/lease premises. I must admit that an honest
guesswork has to be done by the Courts when mesne profits are to be
calculated, and therefore taking the mesne profits at the most
conservative rates, the appellants/landlords is entitled to mesne profits
@ Rs.95/- per sq. feet from 1.9.2006 to 31.8.2011.
7. A landlord is also entitled to interest on arrears of mesne
profits. This issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by
this Court in the judgment reported as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Vs. Cinerama Private Ltd. 180 (2011) DLT 292. In this decision, I
have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Saroj Baweja 2005 (12) SCC 298 and
in which decision the Supreme Court has allowed interest on arrears of
mesne profits. I therefore hold that appellants are entitled to interest
on the mesne profits @ 12% simple and which interest will be payable
from the end of the month from which the mesne profits are payable
by the respondent/tenant to the appellants/landlords. I may note that
as per Section 26 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 interest is
granted @ 15% per annum simple on arrears of rent. I am however
allowing interest @ 12% per annum simple on the arrears of mesne
profits.
8. In case, the respondent/tenant has paid any amounts to
the landlords during this period from 1.9.2006 to 31.8.2011 towards
use and occupation charges, the appellants/landlords will be bound to
give adjustment for such charges which have been received by him.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The
appellants/plaintiffs are granted mesne profits @ Rs.95/- per sq. feet
from 1.9.2006 to 31.8.2011. The appellants will also be entitled to
interest @ 12% per annum simple from the end of the month for which
the mesne profits will be payable. Parties are left to bear their own
costs. Decree sheet be prepared on filing of the Court fee on the
amounts of arrears of mesne profits with interest. Appeal is disposed
of accordingly.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J OCTOBER 19, 2011 Ne
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!