Delhi High Court
State Bank Of India vs Pushpa Singh on 26 November, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: November 26, 2012
+ RFA(OS) 117/2012
STATE BANK OF INDIA ... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.S.N.Relan, Advocate.
versus
PUSHPA SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: Nemo.
AND
RFA(OS) 119/2012
STATE BANK OF INDIA ... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.S.N.Relan, Advocate.
versus
VIRENDRA SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: Nemo.
AND
RFA(OS) 121/2012
STATE BANK OF INDIA ... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.S.N.Relan, Advocate.
versus
RAJENDRA SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: Nemo.
RFA(OS)s No.117, 119, 121 & 122 of 2012 Page 1 of 6
AND
RFA(OS) 122/2012
STATE BANK OF INDIA ... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.S.N.Relan, Advocate.
versus
BHUPENDRA SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
CMs No.19657/2012 & 19659/2012 in RFA(OS) 117/2012; CMs
No.19732/2012 & 19734/2012 in RFA(OS) No.119/2012; CMs
No.19746/2012 & 19748/2012 in RFA(OS) No.121/2012; and CMs
No.19756/2012 & 19758/2012 in RFA(OS) No.122/2012
Allowed.
RFA(OS)s No.117/2012, 119/2012, 121/2012 and 122/2012
1. One building having different Municipal numbers, for the
reason in Old Delhi, when survey was carried out Municipal numbers
were assigned with reference to the doors in a building, explains four
suits filed by the father and his three sons who owned different portions
of a building on Chandni Chowk, Delhi, against the appellant seeking
ejectment and damages by way of mesne profits for continued
unauthorized occupation, alleging that the ground floor, first and second
floor (part mezzanine also) was let out by them (different portions) to the
appellant bank who did not vacate the premises when tenancy was
determined but vacated after a year and few months.
2. The building abuts Chandni Chowk on one side and has an
opening on a street which forms a T-junction with Chandni Chowk i.e. is
a corner plot and the portion occupied by the bank under four tenancies
opens into the side street having the entrance 30 feet away from main
Chandni Chowk.
3. The tenancies were determined; by the father vide notice
dated 08.12.1997 and the sons vide notice(s) dated October 07, 1997.
But, the bank did not vacate the premises when the tenancy(s) was
determined and did so only on September 02, 1999.
4. The father and the sons filed four suits seeking damages
which were opposed on the strength of the plea that the premises being in
a slum area, notwithstanding rent being more than `3,500/- per month and
notwithstanding tenancy being determined, the landlords could not claim
any damages. The suit was dismissed on May 05, 2011 and vide decision
dated December 12, 2011 the decision of the learned Single Judge was set
aside by the Division Bench requiring the Single Judge to determine the
mesne profits, against which appellant filed petitions seeking Special
Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court which were dismissed on May
07, 2012.
5. Vide impugned decree dated September 11, 2012, the
learned Single Judge has computed the mesne profits in sum of `60/- per
sq.ft. per month for the ground floor, `45/- per sq.ft. per month for the
first floor and the second floor and `25/- per sq.ft. per month for the
mezzanine floor.
6. With reference to various lease deeds proved by the father
and sons i.e. the respondents, the learned Single Judge has tabulated as
under:-
Bank Date Exhibit Lease w.e.f. Area (Sq.Ft.) Rent(`) /Rate
`/Sq.ft
Oriental Bank 15.2.93 PW1/20 15.03.93(01.04.92- 2600 (1300 G 1,35,000
Fatehpuri Ch. 31.03.95) floor 1300 p.m. `52
Chowk --01.4.95-31.03.98 Mezannine) 1,55,250-`59
*15% increase
every three year 2600 (1300 G
floor 1300
Mezannine)
Federal Bank 3.10.97 PW1/21 03.10.97 GF -
Katra Baryan Off. `70/sq.ft.
Ch. Chowk
SBI Mortgage- 18.2.99 PW1/18 18.02.99
cum-Agreement
to lease
Tamil Nadu 21.1.00 PW1/22 21.01.00 4005 Ist Floor 2,00,000-`50
Mercantile Bank (P.80)
Fatehpuri Ch.
Chowk
Punjab National Nov. PW1/23 547 Basement 97,900-`51
Bank S.C.Sen 1999 + 1371 GF
Road
Fountain/Ch.
Chowk
SBI Esplanade- 28.1.00 PW1/19 09 August 1999 1341 1st Fl -`55
Katra Mashro Off 1362 2nd Fl -`50
Ch. Chowk
Oriental Bank of 24.5.00 PW1/24 24.05.2000 2600 (GF 1300 1,78,537 -
Commerce (01.04.98- + 1300 Mezz.) `69
31.03.2001)
Jammu & 27.4.00 PW1/25 27.04.2000 3000 Sq.ft. 2,25,000 -
Kashmir (G. Floor) `75
Fatehpuri Ch.
Chowk
7. With reference to the two lease deeds proved by the
appellant, the learned Single Judge has tabulated as under:-
Bank Lease Exhibit Area (Sq.Ft.) Rent(`) Rate `Per. Sq.ft.
Vijaya Bank 9.9.2002 DW3/1 1340 GF 1,12,980 (34.98)
(w.e.f. 1888 Mez
18.11.01) 3228 or 3230
Syndicate 27.9.2001 DW4/1 4635 FF & SF 69,525 + 25% increase
Bank (15)
30.1.92 5570 FF + SF
36,553.12
8. Questioning the comparison with the lease deeds proved by
the respondents it was urged before the learned Single Judge that the
premises covered under the lease deeds in question were on the main
Chandni Chowk and that the portion of the building in occupation of the
appellant abutted a side street. It was secondly urged that said premises
were renovated and the one in question was not renovated and was
leaking. Highlighting that the tenancies proved by the appellant were a
good measure, grievance raised in the appeals is that the learned Single
Judge has ignored the pleas.
9. Now, the learned Single Judge has ignored nothing. With
respect to the leases relied upon by the appellant the learned Single Judge
has noted that the subject properties were let out much prior to the dates
of the leases and during litigation the landlords had agreed to receive the
rents and enter into fresh lease deeds, wherefrom the learned Single Judge
has correctly opined that in said backdrop of the facts it could not be said
that the rents reflected therein were between a willing landlord and a
willing tenant.
10. Noting that the portion of the subject property let out to the
appellant was opening on to a street, the learned Single Judge has
highlighted that the building abutted Chandni Chowk as well, and from
the fact that the entrance to the bank was merely 30 feet from Chandni
Chowk, would make not much difference while comparing the rents. As
regards the said tenancies i.e. the ones relied upon by the landlords
pertain to buildings which were renovated, the learned Single Judge has
not expressly recorded the effect thereof, but as we would be noticing
herein after in the next succeeding paragraph, the learned Single Judge
has factored in the same.
11. We agree with each reasoning of the learned Single Judge
and would simply highlight that the tenancies proved by the father and
sons would show that ground floor rents in the year 1997 and 1998
ranged between `69/- to `75/- per sq.ft. per month and those of the first
floor and second floor between `50/- to `55/- per sq.ft. per month for
buildings in Chandni Chowk.
12. The learned Single Judge, for the period 5.9.1997 to
2.9.1999, has determined `60/- per sq.ft. per month for the ground floor
and `45/- per sq.ft. per month for the first floor and above and thus we
find that the existing building not being renovated and others were
possibly renovated has been factored in by the learned Single Judge as
also that the entrance to the portion of the building with the bank opened
on to the side street at a point 30 feet away from Chandni Chowk.
13. The learned Single Judge has rightly noted that exactness in
comparison of buildings with reference to rents can never be achieved by
any Court.
14. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order
as to costs.
CM No.19658/2012 in RFA(OS) No.117/2012; CM No.19733/2012 in
RFA(OS) No.119/2012; CM No.19747/2012 in RFA(OS) No.121/2012;
and CM No.19757/2012 in RFA(OS) No.122/2012
Since the appeals stand disposed of, instant applications
seeking stay of the impugned order stand disposed of as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
NOVEMBER 26, 2012 JUDGE
dk
