Delhi High Court
Surendra Nath Pasricha vs Kamla Pasricha And Ors on 10 December, 2018
$~O-32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10th December, 2018
+ CS(OS) 252/2016 & I.A.6507/2016, 10972/2018, 10973/2018,
11773/2018
SURENDRA NATH PASRICHA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Satvik Varma, Mr.Udit Chauhan,
Advocates.
versus
KAMLA PASRICHA AND ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr.Shivansh
Soni, Ms.Deepika Mihsra, Advocates
along with Mrs.Kamla Pasricha,
Mrs.Simmi Nayyar, Defendants in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
I.A. 10973/2018 (Under Order XII Rule 6)
1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits in
respect of first floor and barsati floor of property bearing No.25/24, East
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-11008.
2. Vide order dated 15th March, 2018, this Court partly decreed the suit
and passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants. This suit is continuing with respect to plaintiff's claim of the
mesne profits.
3. The plaintiff has filed this application to seek a decree for mesne
profits on the basis of the admissions on the defendant No.2 in the written
statement.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff claimed
mesne profits @ Rs.60,000/- per month which was contested by the
defendants by pleading that the monthly rent of the suit property would not
be more than Rs.40,000/- per month. It is submitted that the plaintiff be
granted mesne profits @ Rs.40,000/- per month as admitted by the
defendants. Reliance is placed on Vijay Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura,
(2007) 142 DLT 483 (DB), Abdul Hamid v. Charanjit Lal Mehra, (1998)
74 DLT 476.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have
not admitted the rent of the suit property to be Rs.40,000/- per month. It is
submitted that the statement made in the written statement that monthly rent
of the suit property would not be more than Rs.40,000/-, is not an admission
and no decree can be passed on this basis. Learned counsel for the
defendants submit that the market rent of the suit property is Rs.24,000/- per
month. It is further submitted that the plaintiff should lead evidence to
prove his claim.
6. The relevant portion of para 14 of the written statement is reproduced
hereunder:
"14. ....It is denied that both the floors can fetch a sum of Rs.60,000.
It is further vehemently denied that the Defendants have caused any
loss to the Plaintiff let along to the tune of Rs.8,40,000. It is submitted
that the market rent of the two floors at present day rates would be not
more than Rs.40,000."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. In para 6 of the reply on merits to I.A.10972/2018, the defendants
have taken a stand that the alleged admission is a statement of fact but the
plaintiff is required to prove the same. Para 6 of the reply on merits to
I.A.10972/2018 is reproduced hereunder:
"6. The contents of paragraph 6 of the application are incorrect
and are denied. It is denied that the answering Defendant have
admitted the rate of rent in their Written Statement. The pleadings of
the Defendant No.2 may be referred to in this regard. The Defendant
No.2 has specifically stated that the market rent of two floor at
present rates „would not be more than Rs.40,000/-‟. It is denied that
this Hon‟ble Court is not required to determine the question as
records the quantum of mesne profits which is payable to the Plaintiff
as alleged. It is pertinent to submit that the Plaintiff has misconstrued
the pleadings of the answering Defendant. The pleadings of the
answering Defendant merely indicate that the rate of rent has claimed
by the Plaintiff in the pleadings at Rs.60,000/- is denied. Moreover it
is mentioned that the present rent would not be more than Rs.40,000/-
per month. The aforesaid pleading does not amount to an admission
on the rent rate of rent at Rs.40,000/- per month but only indicates
maximum amount which may be fetched by the property at present
day rate. Therefore the alleged admission is in fact merely a
statement of fact and plaintiff is still required to prove his claim of
mesne profits by leading evidence."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court
to pass a decree on admissions where the admissions of fact made either in
the pleading or otherwise are sufficient to pass a decree.
9. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court is of the view that the defendants have clearly admitted the market
rent of the suit property to be Rs.40,000/- per month. The contrary stand of
the defendants taken before this Court is hereby rejected. The defendant's
submission that the admission, if at all, is to the liability to pay but not with
respect to the amount to be paid, is also rejected.
10. The application is allowed and the plaintiff's suit is decreed for
recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.40,000/- per month along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of
handing over of the possession by the defendants to the plaintiff i.e.
04th June, 2018.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff do not press
for any other relief in this suit. The suit is, therefore, disposed of. The
pending applications are also disposed of.
DECEMBER 10, 2018 J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk
