Delhi High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Dr. Kranti Prasad Jain & Anr on 22 September, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 288/2009
% Date of decision: 22nd September, 2011
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sharat Kapoor and
Mr. Noor Alam, Advs. with
Mr. J.P. Meena (AGM), BSNL.
versus
DR. KRANTI PRASAD JAIN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Nitin Soni, Adv.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of
the learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court held
the appellant to be liable to pay arrears of rent at the rate of
`42,180/- calculated @ `114/- per sqr.ft. for the period of
December, 2004 to February, 2006 and mesne profits also at
the same rate for the period March, 2006 to 23rd August, 2007
when the appellant vacated the suit property.
2. According to the appellant, the arrears of rent and mesne
profits should have been awarded @ `95/- per sq.ft. which was
the last paid rent by the appellant to the respondent.
3. The appellant vacated the suit property on 23rd August,
2007 and thereafter, the respondent let out the same vide
lease deed - Ex.PW1/11 at the rate of `300/- per sq.ft. The
respondent claimed mesne profits at the rate of `300/- per
sq.ft. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the
respondent's contention and held the appellant to be liable to
pay the arrears of rent and mesne profits in terms of the lease
deed - Ex.PW1/2 which provided the enhancement of rent by
20% after 13th December, 2004.
4. This case squarely covered by the recent judgment dated
18th May, 2011 of this Court in RFA Nos.209-213/2011 dealing
with different flats taken on rent by the appellant in Statesman
House. In those cases also, the appellant sought reduction of
mesne profits from `125/- per sq.ft. to `95/- per sq.ft. whereas
the landlord sought enhancement of the mesne profits by
cross-objections. This Court rejected the contention of the
appellant and enhanced the mesne profits from `125/- per
sq.ft. awarded by the learned Trial Court to `200/- per sq.ft.
The finding of this Court are reproduced hereunder:-
"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 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 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. Following the aforesaid judgment, it is held that no case
for reduction of rent and mesne profits is made out in the
present case. The findings of the learned Trial Court relating
to the arrears of rent and mesne profits at the rate of `114/-
per sq.ft. is upheld. However, since the respondent has not
filed the cross-objections, the enhancement of the mesne
profits is not warranted.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is
dismissed. The pending applications stand disposed of.
J.R. MIDHA, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
aj
