The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of mesne profits and the criteria for calculation of such profits in cases of wrongful use and occupation of premises.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession in respect of Premises No. 9283 and 3089 (Old) - N-1 And N-5/2 (New) in the property known as "n" Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as "suit property" for short ).

( 2 ) WHILE the suit is pending adjudication, this ia N0. 14256/92 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs for wrongful use and occupation of the premises in question with further direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00per month as damages till the disposal of the suit. For determining the issue involved in this IA, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the pleadings.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property which was purchased by the plaintiff in an open auction dated 16/3/1961 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation through Chief Settlement commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation (Now ministry of Home Affairs ). The provisional possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff vide letter dated 13/3/1962 by the Managing Officer of the Office of Regional Settlement Commissioner. Intimation to this effect was given to the Secretary, delhi Development Authority as well as Land and development Officer (Nirman Bhavan) by letters dated 10/8/1965 and 10/5/1968. At the time of purchase of this property by the plaintiff, it was in occupation of various tenants and unauthorised occupants. Attornment letter dated 20/3/1962 was duly issued to the plaintiff by the Office of Settlement Commissioner giving the names of the tenants/unauthorised occupants in the premiss. These names as per the said letter are as under: 1. M/s. Roy and James. 2. M/s. Edde Tailors, 3 3. M/s. Roy Brothers. 4. M/s. S. S. Bali. 5. M/s. B. R. Chopra. 6. M/s. Metro Hotel.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 2 through its Director Shri r. N. Rai was the allottee/tenant of the aforesaid premises bearing No. 9283 and 3089 (old) -N-l and N-5/2 (New) ad measuring 1037. 89 sq. feet shown red in the map under the Government of India, Ministry of rehabilitation. Office of the Regional Settlement commissioner, Jam Nagar house, New Delhi. However, the allotment/tenancy of defendant No. 2 was cancelled by the Managing Officer vide Order dated 1/9/1961 on the ground that the defendant No. 2 had sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the whole of the premises allotted to defendant No. 2 by the said Office of the regional Settlement Commissioner without the permission of the competent authority and it was confirmed that in view thereof, the defendant No. 3, M/s. Tej was held to be unauthorised occupant of the said premises and are liable to be evicted from the said premises. The defendants, no. 4 and 5 the partners/proprietors of defendant No. 3. The notices dated 8/7/1960 were issued to the defendant No. 2 to 5 by the Office of the regional Settlement Commissioner. On the basis of the said notices and after hearing the parties, the managing Officer vide order dated 1/9/1961 cancelled the tenancy of defendant No. 2 on the ground of unauthorised and illegal transfer and sub-letting of the suit premises to defendant No. 3 without the permission in writing of the competent authority. It was further held vide the said order dated 1/9/1961 that defendant No. 3. M/s. Tej is unauthorised occupant of the premises and both M/s. East and West Travel pvt. Ltd. through Shri R. N. Rai and M/s. Tej through their proprietor through Shri Tej Narain are liable to be evicted from the said premises.

( 5 ) AFTER taking provisional possession of the premises, the plaintiff issued notice dated 2/2/1970 to defendant No. 2 mentioning the aforesaid events as per which defendant No. 2 had illegally sub-let the premises to Shri Tej Narayan and Shri Deep Narayan. It was further stated in the notice that tenancy of defendant no. 2 was statutory and was terminated by the said notice on the ground of unauthorised subletting o