1993 Supreme(Del) 327

High Court Of Delhi
BAKSHI SACHDEV - Appellant
Versus
CONCORD (INDIA) - Respondent
Suit 723 of 1989
Decided On : 05/26/1993

The landlord is entitled to damages/mesne profits for the period from the date of termination of tenancy till the date of handing over of vacant possession of the premises. The liability for damages/mesne profits can be joint and several of the defendants who are in occupation of the premises after the termination of tenancy. The tenant is liable to pay the charges levied by the Land and Development Officer on account of misuser of the premises.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14(1)(e) - MESNE PROFITS - RATE OF - JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PHENOMENAL RISE IN RENTS - FAIR COMPENSATION - JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS - LANDLORD AND TENANT - BREACH OF LEASE CONDITIONS - LIABILITY OF TENANT TO PAY CHARGES LEVIED BY LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff let out tenanted premises to Defendant No. 4, a company of Defendants 2 and 5, in 1974. After a few months, Defendant No. 1 was accepted as a tenant on the same terms. Defendant No. 1 was mostly owned by Defendant No. 2, and Defendant No. 2 resided with family members in the tenanted premises. Plaintiff gave notice terminating the tenancy on 12.12.88, asking for possession by the last day of the month. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profits on 10.3.89. Defendants 4 and 5 filed written statements in March 1990, stating that the tenancy had been transferred to Defendant No. 1 and they had no interest. Defendants 1 to 3 did not file written statements until 17.8.90, when their defense was struck out. They appealed to the Division Bench and filed written statements so that they could inform the Division Bench that written statements had been filed. The Division Bench allowed the written statements to be taken on record upon heavy costs. They contended that the Amended Rent Act allowing exemption to premises of rent above Rs. 3500.00 was unconstitutional; that Defendant No. 1 alone was not a tenant and several associate companies were tenants who were paying less than Rs. 3500.00 rent through Defendant No. 1; that the notice was bad as manufacturing processes were done in the premises. The Court held that there was no manufacturing process, the notice terminating the tenancy was proper, and Defendant No. 1 and 2 alone were tenants and only they were prosecuted by the DDA for misuser.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 10,000.00 per month w.e.f. 19th January 1989 till the date of handing over of vacant possession of the premises. The Court also held that all the defendants, i.e., defendants 1 to 3, were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs for the amount on account of damages/mesne profits as determined by the court. The Court further held that the defendants were liable to pay the charges as levied by the Land and Development Officer on account of misuser of the premises. A decree was passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally for payment of the exact amount which was found lawfully payable to the Land and Development Officer on this account. The Court also passed a decree for possession of the property in suit as per the plan filed by the plaintiff.

Issues: 1. Rate of damages/mesne profits to be granted to the plaintiffs. 2. Whether liability for damages/mesne profits can be joint and several of defendants 1 to 3. 3. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the charges levied by the Land and Development Officer on account of misuser of the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 10,000.00 per month w.e.f. 19th January 1989 till the date of handing over of vacant possession of the premises. The Court took judicial notice of the phenomenal rise in rents in Delhi and particularly in the area where the property in suit was located. 2. The Court held that all the defendants, i.e., defendants 1 to 3, were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs for the amount on account of damages/mesne profits as determined by the court. The Court held that defendants 2 and 3 were enjoying the benefits of stay in the premises and should be equally liable for the payment towards damages/mesne profits on account of use and occupation of the premises after the termination of the tenancy. 3. The Court held that the defendants were liable to pay the charges as levied by the Land and Development Officer on account of misuser of the premises. The Court held that it was necessary for the landlords to have the breaches regularized and pay the necessary charges to keep the property intact.

Final Decision: The Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. A decree for possession of the property in suit as per the plan was passed in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 to 3. A decree was also passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally for damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 10,000.00 per month w.e.f. 19th January 1989 till handing over of vacant possession of the premises by the defendants to the plaintiffs. A decree of permanent injunction was also passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants 1 to 3 restraining the defendants from using the property for any purpose other than residential till their handing over vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs in pursuance of the decree for possession. Lastly, a decree was passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for payment by the defendants of all lawful charges payable to the Land and Development Officer on account of misuser of the premises and for the purpose of regularization of breaches of conditions of the lease.