Delhi High Court
Sh. Jagdish Singh vs Ms. Rachna Bansal on 11 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.718/2017
% 11th August, 2017
SH. JAGDISH SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohan, Advocate.
versus
MS. RACHNA BANSAL ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. Nos.28818/2017, 28819/2017 & 28887/2017 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M.s stand disposed of.
C.M. No.28820/2017 (condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 90 days
in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No.718/2017 and C.M. No.28817/2017 (stay)
3. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the trial
court dated 4.2.2017 which has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears
of rent as also for mesne profits for the period after termination of
tenancy. I may note that originally the suit was filed by the
respondent/plaintiff was for possession, and mesne profits and suit for
possession was already decreed vide order of the trial court dated
6.12.2016 passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the possession of
the suit property already stands handed over by the
appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.
4. The suit has been decreed in terms of paras 11 and 11.1
of the impugned judgment and which paras read as under:-
"11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintiff is entitled:-
(1) for a decree of arrears of rent i.e. total amounting to Rs.2,87,500/-
@ Rs.12,500/- per month which is due against the defendant for 23 months
i.e. from July, 2012 to May, 2014, when the legal notice terminating his
tenancy was served.
(2) for a decree of damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs.16000/- per
month in respect of the suit premises. However, the plaintiff would be
entitled for Rs.12,500/- for the month of June, 2014 as 30 days time was
given to the defendant to vacate the suit property and thereafter the
defendant would be liable to pay mesne profits/damages @ Rs.16000/- per
month from July, 2014 till the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
property is handed over to the plaintiff.
11.1 The suit of the plaintiff is, accordingly, decreed leaving the parties
to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be
consigned to record room."
5. The first issue before the trial court as also before this
Court was/is as to what was the rate of rent between the parties. The
appellant/defendant claimed that rate of rent was Rs.9,000/- per month
whereas the respondent/plaintiff claimed that rate of rent was
Rs.12,500/- per month. The respondent/plaintiff in order to prove the
rent filed and proved the rent agreement entered into between the
parties on 19.12.2009 as Ex.PW1/2. Therefore respondent/plaintiff
did lead evidence to prove the rate of rent. Trial court has rightly
found no reason to disbelieve the rent agreement Ex.PW1/2. Trial
court has also rightly disbelieved the defence of the
appellant/defendant that signature of the appellant/defendant were
taken on blank papers of the rent agreement. The appellant/defendant
led no credible documentary evidence whatsoever though the
appellant/defendant claimed that he had deposited rent in the account
of the respondent/plaintiff's bank at Punjab National Bank,
Sikandrabad till June, 2012 and which was very easy for the
appellant/defendant to do and which would have showed that rent was
Rs.9,000/- as was the case of the appellant/defendant. Therefore on the
one hand, the respondent/plaintiff led evidence being the rent
agreement, but on the other hand the appellant/defendant led no
evidence except his oral statement of the rate of rent, and therefore on
preponderance of probabilities, the civil court/trial court was entitled
to come to a finding that the rate of rent was Rs.12,500/- per month
and not Rs.9,000/- per month.
6. The second issue to be addressed is as regards the trial
court granting mesne profits at Rs.16,000/- per month after
terminating the tenancy and which mesne profits would be payable
from July, 2014 till the appellant/defendant vacated the suit property.
This finding of rate of mesne profits at Rs. 16000/- per month, in my
opinion also cannot be interfered with because Courts can grant
reasonable increase in the rent for being paid as mesne profits by
increasing the rent to a higher figure of mesne profits. The admitted
rent was Rs.12,500/- per month in terms of the rent agreement of the
year 2009, and therefore, there is no illegality in the trial court taking
judicial notice of increase of rent and granting mesne profits at
Rs.16,000/- per month from July, 2014 that is just an increase of
around Rs.3,500/- from 2009 till the year 2014. This Court in the case
of M/s M.C. Agrawal HUF Vs. M/s Sahara India and Ors. 183
(2011) DLT 105 has held that in the absence of any evidence led by
the parties as to the increase to the rate of rent courts can ordinarily,
depending on facts of each case, grant 15% increase every year to the
rent/mesne profits. The rate of Rs.16,000/- granted by the trial court is
therefore in accordance with the ratio of the judgment in the case of
M.C. Agrawal HUF (supra).
7. I may note that in fact the appellant/defendant is lucky
because in addition to the directions for payment of arrears of rent and
mesne profits, respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the
unpaid dues, but the trial court has not granted this relief to the
respondent/plaintiff. This aspect therefore already grants sufficient
benefit to the appellant/defendant as he has only to pay the principal
amount being the arrears of rent and mesne profits without payment of
any interest.
8. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
AUGUST 11, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
