The correct rate of mesne profits against a person whose tenancy had terminated is the market rental value of the property.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 6th August, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cental-03, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in RCA No.20/2013 titled M/s. DIC India Ltd. v. Aries Plaschem Industries Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of which the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Central Delhi was set aside and the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record.

3. The only substantial question of law which arises in the instant matter is whether the finding which has been returned by the learned First Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree with regard to the fixation of mesne profits @ Rs.16/- per sq. ft./per month is erroneous/perverse or not.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present appellant is the landlord of the suit premises consisting of basement and the ground floor of the property bearing No.25, Community Centre, Maya Puri, Phase-I, Delhi which was let out to the respondent/tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.4250/- by a registered Lease Deed dated 21.07.1982. The appellant/landlord vide notice dated 08.08.1996 terminated the tenancy of the respondent and requested for handing over the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises and since this was not done, the appellant filed a suit for possession along with recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.1,000/- per day.

5. So far as the possession is concerned, the learned ADJ passed the decree of possession on the basis of admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and the appellant/landlord was handed over the possession of the suit premises on 30.09.2002, subject to the inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC to be decided as to what is the quantum of mesne profits payable to the appellant/landlord and at what rate. The period for which this mesne profits were payable by the respondent/tenant was w.e.f. 01.09.1996 to 30.09.2002, i.e. date of handing over the possession. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 on behalf of the appellant/landlord and DW-1 and DW-2 on behalf of the respondent/tenant, analyzed the evidence and arrived at the finding that the appellant/landlord was entitled to mesne profits @ Rs.16/- per sq. ft./per month for the aforesaid period.

6. The respondent/tenant challenged before the Court of learned ADJ the said finding of the payment of mesne profits @ Rs.16/- per sq. ft. /per month for the period of six years from 01.09.1996 to 30.09.2002 when the premises were vacated.

7. The learned ADJ after going through the evidence set aside the judgment and the decree fixing payment of mesne profits @ Rs.16/- and remanded the matter back to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh. The Appellate Court also observed that the parties may lead evidence to resolve the inquiry made under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC on the quantification of mesne profits/damages, subject to such conditions as the trial Court may in its discretion like to impose.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/landlord has filed the present second appeal before this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2014 setting aside the rate of mesne profits fixed by the learned Civil Judge and remanding the matter back to the trial Court on the ground that there was sufficient evidence produced by the parties already in the case and, therefore, by setting aside the said judgment and the decree, the learned ADJ has only prolonged the final disposal of the matter. It has also been contended that the in P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 686, the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of use of inherent powers by the High Court after 1976 amendment in the CPC for wholesale remand of the case under Order 41 Rule 23 or 23-A because these orders of remand result in keeping the litigation pending unnecessari