Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yogesh Khanna, J.
Usha Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Bank of India – Respondent
Regular First Appeal Nos. 342, 352 of 2007, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8823 of 2007
Decided On : 12-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
S.K. Garg, Aditya Kapoor, Mita Tandon, Anunaya Mehta, Akshay Deep Singhal, S.K. Garg.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for fixing mesne profits, including the consideration of rental rates, market conditions, and the nature of the premises.
Headnote:
lease - property dispute - Transfer of Property Act - [Section 106, Section 2(12)] - The court discussed the lease deed, renewal clauses, and the notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court considered the rental rates, market conditions, and the nature of the premises to determine the mesne profits. The judgment highlighted the principles for fixing mesne profits and emphasized the need for judicial notice of rental increases in urban areas.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a property leased by a bank from the owner. After the lease period ended, the owner issued a notice to vacate the premises and claimed damages for unauthorized occupation. The court decreed the suit in favor of the owner for damages at a reduced rate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank continued to occupy the premises after the lease period ended, leading to a dispute over damages for unauthorized occupation. The court analyzed the lease deed, renewal clauses, and rental rates to determine the mesne profits.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of damages for unauthorized occupation, the comparison of rental rates for different purposes, and the application of renewal clauses in the lease deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the principles for fixing mesne profits, including the need for judicial notice of rental increases in urban areas and the factors influencing rental rates, such as the nature and location of the premises.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the owner's appeal, increasing the rate of mesne profits, and dismissed the bank's appeal. The judgment emphasized the need for fair and reasonable determination of damages for unauthorized occupation.
JUDGMENT :
Yogesh Khanna, J.
1. Both appeals impugn the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned ‘Trial Court’) in Suit No. 294/2004 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of Smt. Usha Gupta for damages @ Rs. 1.00 Lac per month for use and occupation of the suit premises by the respondent/bank unauthorizedly for the period from 01.06.20003 to 30.01.2007, besides simple interest @ 6% per annum was also granted from date of filing of suit till realization with costs.
2. The dispute pertain to demised premises owned by Smt.Usha Gupta viz. the ground floor, mezzanine floor and a basement measuring 1000, 400 and 1100 square feet respectively in property No. G-1, Hauz Khas Enclave, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110016 (hereinafter referred as ‘subject premises’). Feeling aggrieved, appellant/Bank of India has filed RFA No. 342/2007 praying dismissal of the suit and whereas owner/Smt. Usha Gupta has filed RFA No. 352/2007 for enhancement of the user charges to Rs. 2.50 Lac per month for said period. Since both the appeals arise from the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2007 so both appeals are taken up and heard together.
3. The facts as enumerated are as under:-
(a) bank had taken on rent from the appellant/owner herein the premises being the ground floor, mezzanine floor, and basement measuring about 1000 sq. feet, 400 sq. feet and 1100 sq. feet respectively forming part of the property bearing No. G-1, Hauz Khas Enclave, Main Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, by means of a registered lease deed dated 28.06.1995.
(b) the period of lease as per the said registered lease deed came to an end on 31.10.1999 and after the said date, the respondent became month-to-month tenant with respect to the aforesaid suit property.
(c) last paid rent by the respondent to appellant is Rs. 35,000/- per month.
(d) appellant got served upon the respondent a notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act dated 02.05.2003 thereby terminating the tenancy of the respondent w.e.f. 31.05.2003, stating inter-alia, in case of failure to vacate the premises in dispute by 31.05.2003 the respondent would be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 2.50 Lac p.m. which was the most moderate rate of rent then prevailing in the market.
(e) respondent sent a reply dated 12.05.2003 to the said notice dated 02.05.2003 denying its liability to pay damages, however, the quantum of damages was nowhere denied.
(f) the respondent failed to vacate the premises on 31.05.2003 as such the appellant filed a suit for possession and mesne profit on 02.06.2003.
(g) respondent filed its written statement dated 04.07.2003 thereby denying its liability to vacate the suit property and further denying its liability to pay damages. Again the respondent did not allegedly deny the quantum of damages alleged by the appellant in the plaint.
(h) respondent had also filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant relying upon the renewal clause before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2006.
(i) on an application filed by the applicant under Order XII Rule 6 CPC the learned Trial Court on 03.10.2006 passed a decree of possession on the basis of admissions.
(j) bank herein challenged the order dated 03.10.2006 by filing RFA No. 756/2006 in this Court, which was disposed of on 15.01.2007 after the respondent undertook to vacate the premises on or before 31.01.2008. The respondent further undertook to pay occupation charges @ Rs. 110/- per month per square feet with effect from 01.05.2007 to appellant.
(k) suit filed by the appellant has been decided by learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.04.2007 granting the damages @ Rs. 1.00 Lac per month only as against the claim of Rs. 2.50 Lac per month.
(l) the appellant is challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.04.2007, to the extent it allows the claim of damages for Rs. 1.00 Lac per month only as against
