S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendant (hereafter referred to as "the ITDC") appeals the decision of a learned Single Judge, who overruled its objections to the calculation of mesne profits for the period between 01.01.1980 and 28.02.2007 in respect of a property, i.e. described as Jeevan Group Mansion, L Block, Radial Road, Co naught Circus, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the suit property").

2. The plaintiff sought to recover possession of the suit property by filing Suit No.119/1980. The property, in terms of the Suit, was a 297.30 square metre premise used as a showroom. The property was taken-over by the Custodian of Enemy Properties (hereafter "the Custodian") at the onset of the hostilities between India and Pakistan proceeding into the Indo-Pakistan conflict in 1965. The Custodian released the suit property to the plaintiffs on 21.02.1977. In between, the Custodian had rented out the property to the Department of Tourism, Govt. of India; the properties were subsequently made over to the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC). The plaintiff did not accept ITDC as its tenant; it did not also accept any rent; he, therefore, filed a suit claiming possession and mesne profits. On 30.03.1981, issues were framed by the Court which tried the case. The issues framed were as follows:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in suit?

2. Whether the Custodian of Enemy Property created a lease in favor of the defendant? If so, could he not do so?

3. Whether the letter dated 21st February, 1977, Ex.P-1 does not amount to release of the property in favor of the plaintiffs? If so, is the possession of Defendant illegal?"

4. If this Court finds that the property stands released by virtue of Exhibit P-1 are the Plaintiffs bound to accept the Defendant as their tenant?

5. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits, if any, and at what rate?

6. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act?

7. Relief."

3. On the basis of the evidence led, a learned Single Judge, by his judgment and order dated 05.02.2001 decreed the suit in full, directing delivery of vacant possession to the plaintiff and also directing that the plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary decree for mesne profits of Rs. 30,000/-, for the period 01.01.1980 to 31.01.1980. The learned Single Judge further directed an enquiry into the amounts that the plaintiff was entitled to by way of mesne profits. The ITDC carried the decree in appeal [RFA(OS) 18/2001]. This appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 20.10.2005. The matter was sought to be further appealed by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP No.1569/2006) to the Supreme Court. By the order dated 13.02.2006, the Supreme Court held that the Petition was unmerited and accordingly rejected it. It, however, acceded to ITDC's request that it be permitted to vacate the premises on or before 28.02.2007 subject to its furnishing an undertaking. The Supreme Court's order dated 13.02.2006, disposing of the SLP is as follows:

"ORDER

Heard Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General for the Petitioner and learned senior counsel for the Respondents.

We see no substance in this special leave petition which is liable to be dismissed.

However, at the request of the learned Solicitor General time to vacate the premises is granted upto 28th February 2007 on the Petitioner's filing the usual undertaking by the competent officer within four weeks.

The special leave petition is dismissed."

4. In the meanwhile, the learned Single Judge had appointed a Local Commissioner to collect the evidence and furnish his report on the issue of mesne profits. In the course of enquiry, the appellant, i.e. ITDC urged that the total area of the suit property was not 297.30 square metres but much less and that any determination of mesne profits had to be on the basis of such actual area so determined. The other substantial argument made by the ITDC was that the order of the Supreme C