Delhi High Court
M/S Payal Visions Pvt. Ltd vs Ms. Radhika Chaudhary on 27 August, 2014
$~ 51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1701/2008
% Date of decision : 27th August, 2014
M/S PAYAL VISIONS PVT. LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.K. Dutta and Mr.Manish
Kumar Srivastava, Advocates
versus
MS. RADHIKA CHAUDHARY ..... Defendant
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of damages and
mesne profit.
2. Prior to the filing of the present suit, plaintiff had instituted a suit
against the defendant for recovery of possession, which was
decreed by the trial Court and the order of the trial court was
reversed in appeal by the High Court. The Supreme Court vide
order and judgment dated 20.9.2012 has upheld the order of the
trial court. Possession of the suit property was handed over by the
defendant to the plaintiff on 12.12.2012.
3. As per the plaint the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a
legal notice dated 17.3.2003. The last paid rent of the premises
was Rs.57,600/- per month. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that
the entire property, i.e. land 850 sq. yrds. situated in Khasra
No.841/1, known as Ghtorni Junction on Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,
Delhi, was given on rent to the defendant. It is submitted that the
property was being used by the defendant for commercial
purposes.
4. The plaintiff has claimed mesne profit for the period 1.8.2005 to
31.7.2008 @ Rs.1.0 lac per month and from 1.8.2008 to
12.12.2012 when the possession was handed over @ Rs.2.50 lacs
per month. No evidence has been led by the defendant.
5. It may also be noticed that initially defendant had appeared in the
matter and had also filed written statement, but at the stage of
evidence none has chosen to remain present to cross-examine the
witnesses of the plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff has filed the affidavit by way of evidence of the Director
of the plaintiff, company being PW-1/A, who has testifled on the
lines of the plaint. Copy of the legal notice dated 17.3.2003 has
been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/3. Plaintiff has also filed evidence of
Sh.Ajay Vajpai, who is stated to be engaged in the business of real
estate. The affidavit of Sh.Ajay Vajpai, has been exhibited as
Ex.PW-2/A. PW-2 has also testified that the market rent of
similarly situated premises is @ Rs.2.50 lacs per month.
7. The affidavit of Sh.Ashish Tuli, has been exhibited as Ex.PW-3/A.
PW-3 has testified that he had taken on lease another property in
close vicinity to the property of the plaintiff in the year 2003 and
the rent was @ Rs.1.2 lacs per month and the market rate would
be Rs.2.50 lacs.
8. Counsel for the plaintiff prays that the mesne profit may be
calculated in terms of the decision rendered by another Single
Judge of this Court in the case of M.C. Agrawal HUF v. Sahara
India & Ors. 183 (2011) DLT 105, wherein the learned Single
Judge has held that in case the plaintiff does not lead evidence to
prove the market rate, it would be safe to calculate the amount by
escalation of 15% every year; and the Court can also take judicial
notice of the increase of rents in Delhi.
9. The evidence of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted. Accordingly,
the suit is decreed. Taking a conservative estimate based on the
evidence which has been led by the plaintiff, plaintiff would be
entitled to a decree for mesne profit @ Rs.75,000/- per month for
the period starting from 1.8.2005 to 31.7.2008 and @
Rs.1,25,000/- per month for the period starting from 1.8.2005 to
12.12.2012. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
I.A. 9788/2008
10. In view of the order passed in suit today, the present application
stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
AUGUST 27, 2014
ssn
