Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Anil Kumar Khanna & Ors. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. - Defendant
CS(OS) 119/1980
Decided on : 17.07.2015
The Court determined the mesne profits payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs for wrongful possession of the suit property from 1.2.1980 till 28.2.2007. The Court held that the defendant was liable to pay mesne profits even though the Supreme Court had granted time to the defendant to vacate the premises till 28.2.2007, as the order of the Supreme Court did not merge with the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench, and the defendant had undertaken to pay mesne profits till the delivery of vacant possession. The Court also held that the mesne profits were payable for the entire period of wrongful possession, and not just for three years as argued by the defendant. The Court further held that the rate of mesne profits would be determined on the basis of the prevailing market rent, with an annual increase of 15%. The Court also awarded interest on the mesne profits at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the mesne profit fell due till payment is received by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of property commonly known as Jiwan Roop Mansion “L? Block, Radial Road, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The Court vide judgment dated 5.2.2001 passed a decree for possession of the suit property. The Court also directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to a preliminary decree for mesne profits of Rs.30,000/-for the period from 1.1.1980 till 31.1.1980. Plaintiff was also held entitled to interest @12% per annum on the mesne profits determined from the date of its accruing till date. Pendente lite interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment was awarded. The court also held that w.e.f. 1.2.1980 an inquiry is required to be conducted as to the amount of mesne profits that the plaintiffs are entitled to. Mr. Bhawani Shanker Bannerjee, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to determine the amount of mesne profits payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant from 1.2.1980 till date of delivery of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the defendant was liable to pay mesne profits even though the Supreme Court had granted time to the defendant to vacate the premises till 28.2.2007, as the order of the Supreme Court did not merge with the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench, and the defendant had undertaken to pay mesne profits till the delivery of vacant possession. The Court also held that the mesne profits were payable for the entire period of wrongful possession, and not just for three years as argued by the defendant. The Court further held that the rate of mesne profits would be determined on the basis of the prevailing market rent, with an annual increase of 15%. The Court also awarded interest on the mesne profits at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the mesne profit fell due till payment is received by the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant was liable to pay mesne profits even though the Supreme Court had granted time to the defendant to vacate the premises till 28.2.2007? 2. Whether the mesne profits were payable for the entire period of wrongful possession, and not just for three years? 3. How the rate of mesne profits would be determined? 4. Whether interest should be awarded on the mesne profits and if so, at what rate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the defendant was liable to pay mesne profits even though the Supreme Court had granted time to the defendant to vacate the premises till 28.2.2007, as the order of the Supreme Court did not merge with the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench, and the defendant had undertaken to pay mesne profits till the delivery of vacant possession. 2. The Court held that the mesne profits were payable for the entire period of wrongful possession, and not just for three years as argued by the defendant. 3. The Court held that the rate of mesne profits would be determined on the basis of the prevailing market rent, with an annual increase of 15%. 4. The Court held that interest should be awarded on the mesne profits at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the mesne profit fell due till payment is received by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The Court determined the mesne profits payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs for wrongful possession of the suit property from 1.2.1980 till 28.2.2007. The Court also awarded interest on the mesne profits at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the mesne profit fell due till payment is received by the plaintiff.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. By the present order I shall dispose of the objections to the report of the Local Commissioner filed by plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.3 and the defendant respectively. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for recovery of possession of property commonly known as Jiwan Roop Mansion „L? Block, Radial Road, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. This Court vide judgment dated 5.2.2001 passed a decree for possession of the suit property. The Court also directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to a preliminary decree for mesne profits of Rs.30,000/-for the period from 1.1.1980 till 31.1.1980. Plaintiff was also held entitled to interest @12% per annum on the mesne profits determined from the date of its accruing till date. Pendente lite interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment was awarded. The court also held that w.e.f. 1.2.1980 an inquiry is required to be conducted as to the amount of mesne profits that the plaintiffs are entitled to. Mr. Bhawani Shanker Bannerjee, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to determine the amount of mesne profits payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant from 1.2.1980 till date of delivery of possession.
2. Against the above judgment, the defendant filed an appeal RFA(OS)18/2001. The appeal was dismissed on 20.10.2005. An SLP was also filed by the defendant which was dismissed on 13.2.2006. However, the defendant was given time by the Supreme Court to vacate the premises upto 28.2.2007 on the defendant filing usual undertaking. The defendant vacated the premises on 28.2.2007.
3. The Local Commissioner has now filed his final report dated 31.8.2013 determining the mesne profits w.e.f.1.2.1980 till 28.2.2007. Plaintiffs and defendant have filed their objections to the report which are being disposed of by the present order.
4. Coming to the report, in paragraph 6 of his report the Local Commissioner has framed questions that arose for determination of mesne profits/damages. The questions framed are as follows:-
(a) What was the total area of the suit premises occupied by the defendant during the period 01.02.1980 to 28.02.2007?
(b) Whether it is necessary for the Local Commissioner to go into the question of carpet area or super area for correct quantification of the mesne profits?
(c) Whether in view of the order dated 13.2.2006 passed by the Supreme Court of India granting time upto 28.2.2007 to vacate the premises the defendant was not in wrongful and illegal possession as the orders of this Court merged with the orders of the Supreme Court and the present enquiry of determining mesne profits by the Local Commissioner is without jurisdiction?
(d) Whether the plaintiffs can claim mesne profits only for the period of three years in view of Order 20 Rule 12 CPC?
(e) What amount are the plaintiffs entitled to claim as mesne profits?
5. As far as question No.(c) and (d) are concerned the Local Commissioner has not answered these issues holding that these are issues to be determined by the Court.
6. As far as question No.(a) is concerned i.e. area of the premises, the Local Commissioner noted that the admitted position in the pleadings including the written statement filed by the defendant, is that the defendant is in legal possession of property measuring 297.3 sq.meters. Keeping into account the pleadings and the fact that the defendant has belatedly sought to challenge the area in question, the Local Commissioner concluded that the area under occupation of the defendant was 297.3 sq.meters.
7. On question (b), namely, super area and carpet area, the Local Commissioner has noted that the property was let out by the Custodian of Enemy Property from 1.1.1966 to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.345/-for the whole premises without separately specifying covered area or carpet area or super area. The plaintiffs have also claimed mes
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
