Central Bank Of India vs Innovative Builders
2018 Latest Caselaw 4376 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No. 1000/2016

%                                                       30th July, 2018

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA                                     ..... Appellant

                          Through:       Mr. Jaswinder Singh and Mr. S.
                                         Sankarana, Advocates.

                          versus

INNOVATIVE BUILDERS                                     ..... Respondent

                          Through:       Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate
                                         with Mr. Jaideep Singh and Mr.
                                         Sarthak Katiyal, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant/bank/tenant

against the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 16.7.2016 by

which the trial court has decreed the suit so far as the relief of mesne

profits is concerned for the period from 1.7.2011 to 21.6.2013 along

with interest at 6% per annum simple. The amount decreed is

Rs.6,11,975/- per month, and which is decreed on the basis of Lease

Deed Ex.PW1/15, a Lease Deed executed by the

appellant/defendant/tenant while taking another premises on rent in

the same area.

2. I do not have to set down the facts in detail, inasmuch as,

there is no dispute that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties and this Court has only to determine as to what

would be the mesne profits payable for the period from 1.7.2011 to

21.6.2013.

3. During the course of admission/denial of the documents

the respondent/plaintiff filed and proved on record the Lease Deed

Ex.PW1/15 as per which the appellant/defendant had taken premises

no. 11-94, plot no. 11, Municipal no. 94 M, Block no. 90, Baird Road,

Gole Market, New Delhi, area admeasuring 1952 sq. feet. on the

ground floor at monthly rent of Rs.5,25,088/- i.e Rs.269 per sq. ft.

with effect from 1.10.2012. It is at this rate of Rs.269 per sq. ft. that

the trial court has granted mesne profits for the subject suit from

1.7.2011 to 21.6.2013.

4. Though learned counsel for the appellant/defendant

argues that the Lease Deed Ex.PW1/15 cannot be a parameter for

fixing rent of the subject premises because the subject premises are

old premises and the premises under the Lease Deed Ex.PW1/15 are

new premises, however this argument of the appellant/defendant

cannot be accepted because admittedly this is only an oral submission

being made before the Court and there is no such evidence led on

behalf of the appellant/defendant in the trial court that the suit

premises are situated in an older premises than the premises which are

subject matter of the Lease Deed Ex.PW1/15. I may note that the

undisputed position is that the difference in distance between the

subject suit premises and the premises which are subject matter of

Lease Deed Ex.PW1/15 is just about 200 metres and both the premises

are in Central Delhi.

5. I however agree with one argument urged on behalf of

the appellant/defendant that the Lease Deed Ex.PW1/15 fixes rent

with effect from 1.10.2012 is almost of a period after about one year

and three months from 1.7.2011, and from which date of 1.7.2011 the

mesne profits have to be calculated, and therefore the rent of earlier

year commencing from 1.7.2011 must be taken at a rate lesser than

that fixed at Rs.269 per sq. feet.

6. The issue is that how much should the rent be reduced

from 269 per sq. feet because this rate is the rate as on 1.10.2012 and

we have to calculate the rate with effect from 1.7.2011.

7. In my opinion, since while granting increase in rent the

Courts grant normally 10% increase per year for mesne profits, in

view of the judgment in the case of M.C. Aggarwal vs. M/s Sahara

India & Ors. 2011 (183) DLT 105, therefore in my opinion the mesne

profits should be granted in the present case at roughly 10% lesser i.e

approximately Rs.27 lesser, and which would mean that we can take

the rent at Rs.240 per sq. feet per month for the period from 1.7.2011

to 1.7.2012. From 1.7.2012 till 21.6.2013 this figure would have to be

increased by 10% i.e. for the period from 1.7.2012 to 21.6.2013 rate of

mesne profits will remain at the same rate as granted by the trial court

at Rs.6,11,975/- per month i.e. Rs.269 per sq. feet.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partially

allowed by directing that with effect from 1.7.2011 till 30.6.2012 the

rate of mesne profits will be at Rs.240 per sq. feet per month and for

the period from 1.7.2012 till 21.6.2013 the rate of mesne profits will

be as granted by the trial court at Rs.269 per month per sq. feet.

9. I however clarify that the rate of interest will continue to

remain at the same rate as granted by the trial court in terms of the

impugned judgment.

10. Accordingly, this appeal is partially allowed as stated

above, but dismissed with respect to the period from 1.7.2012 till

21.6.2013. Since the appellant/defendant has deposited the entire

decretal amount in this Court, Registry will now calculate the amount

of mesne profits payable in terms of today's judgment taking the

principal amount deposited for mesne profits payable alongwith

interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple taken as on date of passing

of the impugned Judgment dated 16.7.2016.

11(i). The appellant/defendant having deposited in this Court an

excess amount, Registry will now proportionately make payment of

the principal amount of mesne profits payable due as on 16.7.2016 to

the respondent/plaintiff and will refund the balance amount to the

appellant/defendant. Payment to each of the parties will be of principal

amount due as on 16.7.2016 along with accrued interest thereon till the

date of deposit in this Court since the decretal amount which is deposited

in this Court by the appellant/defendant has been put in a fixed deposit

and is earning interest.

11(ii). To clarify the issue, it is observed that the total amount

deposited in this Court will be divided into two parts. The first part will

be of a principal amount due from 1.7.2011 till 30.6.2012 at Rs.240 per

sq. feet per month and Rs.269/- per sq. feet per month from 1.7.2012 till

21.6.2013, along with accrued interest thereon at 6% per annum simple

in terms of the impugned judgment, till the date of deposit of the amount

by the appellant/defendant in this Court. This amount will be paid to the

respondent/plaintiff and the balance amount lying deposited in this Court

along with accrued interest at 6 % per annum in terms of the impugned

judgment and interest thereafter on this amount on account of fixed

deposit being created in this Court, be paid to the appellant/defendant.

12. If for the subject period from 1.7.2011 till 21.6.2013 if the

appellant/defendant has deposited any amount in any Court or the Court

or Rent Controller, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw such amount

deposited in any Court or Rent Controller.

13. The appeal is accordingly partially allowed and disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JULY 30, 2018 AK                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J