Sri.J.S.Narsing Rao Died Per ... vs Shalimar Paints Ltd.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4151 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1623 of 2017


ORDER:

By way of this civil revision petition, the petitioners assail

the orders of the XVII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Rent

Controller, City Civil Courts at Secunderabad, dated

30.03.2012. By the impugned orders, the application filed by

the petitioners in I.A. No. 137 of 2008 in O.S. No. 372 of 1998

under Order XX Rule 12 CPC to appoint an Advocate-

Commissioner and determine the mesne profits in respect of the

suit schedule property for the period from January, 1998 to

April, 2005 and pass a final decree in terms of such

determination was allowed by fixing the mesne profits of

Rs.3,89,172/- together with interest at 12% per annum thereon

from 01.05.2005 to till the date of decree and at 6% per annum

from the date of the decree till the date of realization. It is to be

noted that thought the mesne profits were claimed till April,

2005, the trial Court, inadvertently, had calculated the same for

the entire period of 12 months. Later, upon a review application

filed by the respondent herein, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.

226 of 2013 in I.A. No. 137 of 2008 by order dated 27.03.2014

by restricting the determined amount for the year 2005 from 2 MGP, J C.R.P._1623_2017

66,300/- to Rs.21,000/- being the mesne profits for four

months i.e., till April, 2005.

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the

respondent is the defendant in the suit. For the sake of

convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per

their array in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit in O.S. No. 372

of 1998 filed by the plaintiffs seeking eviction of defendant was

decreed on 27.03.2011 with a finding that the question of

determination of mesne profits to be determined by a separate

application under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. The said judgment

attained finality in view of dismissal of first appeal in A.S. No.

45 of 2001 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad and S.A. No. 1316 of 2004 by this Court

on 05.11.2004. On 01.05.2005, the defendant vacated the

premises. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the impugned

application seeking determination of mesne profits from

January, 1998 to April, 2005 at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per

month. On contest by the defendant, the trial Court by the

impugned order allowed the application determining the mesne

profits as indicated above. On the ground that the 3 MGP, J C.R.P._1623_2017

determination of mesne profits by the trial Court is on lower

side, the present civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners, plaintiffs,

submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in taking into

account the old rent of Rs.2,579/- per month which is grossly

low considering the fact that the schedule property is situated

in a strategic commercial location. P.W.1 in his evidence

clearly stated that the schedule premises, upon eviction of the

defendant, was given on rent at Rs.70,000/- per month and

considering the said evidence, the trial Court ought to have

fixed the monthly rent at Rs.50,000/-.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent, defendant sought to sustain the impugned order

contending that the fixation of mesne profits by the trial Court

is reasonable and the same needs no interference by this Court.

6. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs, got examined

the plaintiff No. 3 as P.W.1 apart from marking Exs.A.1 to A.7.

Exs.A.1 to A.7 are the bank statements of the plaintiffs for the

period from 22.08.2005 to 31.03.2006. P.W.1 asserted that

after eviction of the defendant, the schedule premises was let

out to GKB Optolabs in the year 2005 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 4 MGP, J C.R.P._1623_2017

discloses the payment of rent made by said GKB Optolabs,

which is at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month. Therefore, based

on the said documents, the plaintiffs sought for fixation of fair

rent at Rs.50,000/- per month for determining the mesne

profits to be paid for the period from January, 1998 to April,

2005 i.e., 88 months. However, the trial Court did not take

into consideration the said evidence on the ground that the rent

of Rs.70,000/- as reflected by Exs.A.1 to A.7 being paid by GKB

Optolabs is not relevant as the rent to be fixed is for the period

January, 1998 to April, 2005. Further, the trial Court relied on

the last rent that was paid by the defendant at Rs.2,579/- and

by giving enhancement thereto at 10% per annum, determined

the mesne profits. Thus, the rent for the last month i.e. April,

2005 came to be fixed at Rs.5,525/-. At this stage, it is to be

observed that as seen from Exs.A.1 to A.7, the premises,

immediately after eviction of defendant i.e., in the month of

May, 2005, was given on rent to GKB Optolabs at Rs.70,000/-

per month. Thus, though the factual rent of the premises being

fetched on eviction of the defendant is at Rs.70,000/- per

month, the rent fixed by the trial Court for the relevant period

stood at Rs.5,525/-, which, in the opinion of this Court, does

not reflect the fair rent. Furthermore, although the plaintiffs 5 MGP, J C.R.P._1623_2017

claimed the rent at Rs.50,000/- per month, in the cross-

examination, P.W.1 categorically admitted that the rent being

paid by one of the old tenants (#95, Parklane, Tara) for similar

premises is Rs.20,000/- per month since 2005. Taking into

consideration the above evidence, this Court is inclined to fix

the monthly rent for the year 1998 at Rs.12,000/- and inclined

to enhance the rent at 10% per annum thereon for each

subsequent year. Thus, calculating the rent on the above rate,

the mesne profits for the period from January, 1998 to April,

2005 are fixed as under:-

For the year 1998, the rent is Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 12)

For the year 1999, the rent is Rs.1,58,400/- (Rs.13,200 x 12)

For the year 2000, the rent is Rs.1,74,240/- (Rs.14,520 x 12)

For the year 2001, the rent is Rs.1,91,664/- (Rs.15,972 x 12)

For the year 2002, the rent is Rs.2,10,828/- (Rs.17,569 x 12)

For the year 2003, the rent is Rs.2,31,912/- (Rs.19,326 x 12)

For the year 2004, the rent is Rs.2,55,108/- (Rs.21,259 x 12)

For the year 2005, the rent is Rs.93,540/- (Rs.23,385 x 04)

4. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part.

The impugned order of the trial Court is modified by enhancing

the mesne profits from Rs.3,43,872/- to Rs.14,59,692/- for the

period from January, 1998 to April, 2005 while maintaining the 6 MGP, J C.R.P._1623_2017

order in all other respects. The respondent, defendant is

directed to pay the mesne profits, as determined above, within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. In default, the revision petitioners are at liberty to

initiate appropriate proceedings seeking realization of the said

amount. No costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 20th November, 2023 Tsr