Mesne profits arise independently of breach of contract, and landlords are entitled to claim beyond stipulated amounts in lease agreements where wrongful possession is established.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. These Civil Revision Applications raise identical questions of law in respect of same lessee – State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (‘STC’ for short) involving different lessors/landlords and therefore are being disposed of together.

2. The Civil Revision Application No. 308 of 2011 is filed by STC challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 11/01/2011 passed in the Appeal No. 177 of 2010 and Cross objection No. 28 of 2010 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai, thereby dismissing both the appeal and the cross-objections, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 08/02/2010 passed in Mesne Profit Application No. 1 of 2006 filed by the Ravindra Singh Indersingh Sehgal and others directing the STC to pay the mesne profit in respect of the suit premises @ Rs.90/- per sq.ft per month (p.sq.ft.p.m.) with effect from 01/01/2002 until the receipt of possession alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. Thus, the STC is before this Court challenging the concurrent findings of facts and law. The Suit premises involved is office no. 607, admeasuring 275 sq.ft. on 6^th Floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

3. The Civil Revision Application No. 835 of 2014 is filed by the STC challenging the judgment and order dated 07/05/2014 passed in Appeal No. 119 of 2013 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai, modifying the order passed in Mesne Profit Application no. 49 of 2010 dated 14/12/2012 by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, reducing mesne profits from Rs.150/- p.sq.ft.p.m. to Rs. 100/- p.sq.ft.p.m. alongwith interest @ 6% per month from 01/10/2003 to 31/10/2010. The suit premises involved in this case is office no 601, admeasuring 1000 sq.ft on the 6^th floor of the same building. Same impugned order is challenged by lessor / landlady by filing Civil Revision Application No. 929 of 2014 seeking mesne profit at enhanced rate as granted by the Trial Court. Thus, CRA/835/2014 and CRA/929/2014 are arising out of the same impugned judgment and order.

4. In both matters, the decree passed in favour of landlord/lessor granting eviction of STC has attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there is no dispute about it. There is also no dispute that STC has handed over the possession of the suit premises to the respective landlord/lessor, on 05.10.2011 to Ravinder Singh Indersingh Sehgal and on 08.11.2019 to Godavaridevi Agrawal.

5. The controversy involved is in narrow compass which is revolving around the interpretation of the Clause 15 of the lease-deed involved. The STC was inducted in the suit premises under lease-deed executed with respective landlords containing same clause 15, which is reproduced and considered in the paragraphs to follow.

SUBMISSIONS

6. Senior Advocate Mr. Anil Singh appearing for the STC made following submissions.

6/1. That the clause 15 operating between the parties is not challenged by any landlord / lessor and the same is binding.

6/2. That it is a basic rule of interpretation that every word in the clause has to be given meaning. That entire clause 15 will have to be read together.

6/3. That the Court cannot rewrite the contract between the parties, who are governed by a pure commercial contract and as such the clause will have to be strictly interpreted.

6/4. That only interpretation possible is that Rs.12/- p.sq.ft.p.m. can be taken as an upper limit and no amount beyond such agreed compensation can be granted.

6/5. Relying on the various documents annexe