Delhi High Court
Vijay Pal Singh vs Bharat Bhushan Gulati on 27 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No.250/2017
% 27th October, 2017
VIJAY PAL SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, Adv.,
Appellant in person.
versus
BHARAT BHUSHAN GULATI ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the
appellant/defendant/tenant in the suit impugning the concurrent
judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 21.11.2016
and the First Appellate Court dated 4.7.2017; by which the courts
below have decreed the suit to the extent of relief of arrears of rent
from April, 2014 till June, 2015 and has also granted mesne profits at
Rs.15,000/- per month from July, 2015 till the appellant/tenant vacated
the suit premises.
2. On the aspect of grant of mesne profits, it is argued by the
appellant/defendant, who appeared in person and who is an Advocate,
that the mesne profits could only be granted pendente lite and till
delivery of possession and not prior to the filing of the suit. The
argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant is completely
misconceived because mesne profits are granted on termination of
tenancy and when the legal entitlement of the person to stay in the
tenanted premises as a tenant comes to an end. Once tenancy comes
to an end then charges which are payable are mesne profits as per
Section 2(12) CPC. Therefore, the argument that mesne profits cannot
be granted prior to filing of the suit is misconceived and is rejected
noting that as per limitation mesne profits can be granted up to three
years prior to the filing of the suit . I may also note that the case of the
respondent/plaintiff/landlord was that the tenancy was terminated with
effect from 30th June, 2015 inasmuch as the appellant/defendant/tenant
had agreed to vacate on 30.6.2015, and since that was not done, the
period after 30th June, 2015 is the period of illegal possession of the
suit premises by the appellant/defendant. The first argument of the
appellant/defendant is therefore rejected.
3. The second argument which is urged on behalf of the
appellant/defendant is that the courts below have erred in granting
arrears of rent at the admitted rate of Rs.10,500/- per month from
April 2014 till June 2015 inasmuch as the undertaking dated 11.4.2016
filed by the appellant/defendant before the SHO, and which document
is relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff himself as document
Ex.PW2/3 (colly), the appellant/defendant had stated in this document
Ex.PW2/3 (colly) that rent was paid till 30.6.2015 except balance of
Rs.21,000/-. It is argued that this undertaking once is used for holding
illegal occupation of the appellant/defendant from July, 2015 then the
same argument has to be read as a whole and not in part.
4. Though the argument of the appellant/defendant did carry
some weight at the first blush, however, it is seen that the court below
has relied upon the bank pass-books not only of the
respondent/plaintiff but also of the appellant/defendant himself and
which pass-books showed that rent which was payable was being paid
by the cheque and such payment of rents by cheques was only till
March, 2014. The relevant bank transactions were as per the pass-
books; Ex.PW1/5 being of the respondent/plaintiff and Ex.DW1/5
being of the appellant/defendant. I may note that the
appellant/defendant thereafter in desperation took a plea that the rent
has been paid after March, 2014 in cash, however, no such plea was
taken in the written statements besides the fact that no proof
whatsoever has been filed of payment of cash including any receipt of
payment allegedly made in cash, and accordingly, the courts below
were justified in believing the plea that arrears of rent were due from
April, 2014.
5. Lastly it was argued on behalf of the appellant/defendant
that courts below have erred in granting mesne profits of Rs.15,000/-
however, once again there is no substance in this argument for two
reasons. Firstly, the admitted rate of rent of Rs.10,500/- was fixed in
the year 2012 and mesne profits which are calculated are from July,
2015, i.e, about more than three years later. This aspect has also to be
taken with the fact that the appellant/defendant himself admitted that
when he took alternative premises in the year 2015 at a distance of just
half a kilometer and that he has paid Rs.15,000/- for that alternative
premises, and therefore this figure of Rs. 15,000/- has been taken by
the courts below as the rate of mesne profits for the suit premises, and
with respect to which I do not find any illegality whatsoever.
6. No such substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
OCTOBER 27, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ak
