The court applied Sections 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to determine mesne profits and took judicial notice of the increase of rentals in the area.

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant for possession of the first and second floors of the residential premises bearing No.S-20, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, and for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.7,25,000/-, apart from future damages w.e.f. October, 2011, for the illegal use and occupation of the demised premises along with interest thereon.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner/landlady of premises bearing No.S-20, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, and is residing on the ground floor. As per the plaintiff, Shri Ajay Kapoor, Director of the defendant/company had approached her through a property broker in December, 2009 for taking on lease the first and second floors of the demised premises, to which the plaintiff was agreeable. As a result, a Lease Deed dated 24.12.2009 was executed between the parties (Ex.PW1/1).

3. As per Clause-1 of the Lease Deed, the first and second floors of the demised premises were let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,45,000/-, exclusive of the electricity and water charges and the rent was payable in advance on the seventh day of each calendar month. The tenure of the Lease Deed was for a period of three years, commencing from 01.01.2010 and ending on 31.12.2012. The defendant had paid one month’s rent in advance to the plaintiff after deducting the TDS. As per Clause-4 of the Lease Deed, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-towards interest free security deposit, which was refundable at the time of handing over vacant physical possession of the demised premises by the defendant. Clause-25 of the Lease Deed stipulated that if the defendant/lessee failed to pay the monthly rent, as agreed upon for a period of one month, the lease would stand automatically terminated without any notice and the plaintiff/lessor would be entitled to take over the possession of the demised premises. Clause 25 of the Lease Agreement also stipulated that in case the rent cheques bounce, the lessee would be liable to pay a penalty of 10,000/- per day, in addition to the monthly rent.

4. The plaintiff has averred that the defendant had issued her advance cheques towards the monthly rent for the period till December, 2012 but when the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured on a number of occasions. It was submitted that upon the commencement of the lease, the first cheque which was for the month of January, 2010, when presented by the plaintiff on 08.01.2010, was dishonoured by the defendant’s banker with the remarks, “insufficiency of funds” and thereafter, the defendant had paid the rent for the said month in cash. Similarly, for the next month also, the second cheque of the defendant, when presented by the plaintiff, was dishonoured and this pattern was repeated for the subsequent months as well.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that from the beginning of the year 2011, the defendant became very irregular in the payment of rent and as a number of cheques issued by it were dishonoured by its banker upon being presented and for every such cheque, charges were levied on the plaintiff by her banker, she started depositing the cheques only after verifying from the staff of the defendant as to whether the same ought to be presented to the bank or not. The details of the manner in which the plaintiff had presented the rent cheques on receiving instructions from the defendant for the period from January, 2011 till April, 2011, have been set out in para 7 of the plaint.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that not only did the defendant fail to make timely payment of the rent, but it also defaulted in issuing a TDS certificate to the plaintiff for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 and it was only after the present suit was instituted and summons were issued to the defendant, did it deposit the TDS for the aforesaid period with th