The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of premises by a tenant, and the court's authority to decree recovery of such damages.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The plaintiff has filed this Suit for recovery of mesne profits/damages in the sum of Rs.3,40,80,000/- for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises by the defendant for the period 01st April, 1989 to 31st January, 2002 by way of amended plaint dated 26th February, 2013/25th May, 2017.

2. The long and arduous journey for recovery of possession and thereafter, for recovery of damages/mesne profits began way back in the year end of 1989. In this long span of almost 33 years, this case has gone through many bumps and jumps before reaching the stage of final adjudication. While the plaintiff was successful in getting the possession on 31st January, 2002, the struggle to get the mesne profits continues even now.

3. The plaintiff-M/s Amrit Estates (P) Ltd. had rented out the suit premises bearing No. A-28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property") to the defendant Punjab National Bank vide Lease Agreement dated 07th December, 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs.19,000/- per month, for the purpose of Residential Staff Training College. Another Agreement for Fittings and Fixtures including articles and furniture dated 07th December, 1979, was entered into between the parties for which monthly charges of Rs.6,000/- were payable. The total rent thus payable was Rs.25,000/- per month.

4. According to the Lease Agreement dated 07th December, 1979, the premises were agreed to be let out for three years, commencing from 02nd November, 1979 with an option to renew it for further period from time to time as may be intimated by the defendant. It was further agreed that in case the tenancy continued, there would be an enhancement of 10% in rent after every three years and a fresh Lease Deed shall be executed.

5. The plaintiff has claimed that the cumulative rent was Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.19,000/- and the 10% enhancement had to be on the cumulative rent and not on Rs.19,000/-. However, the defendant enhanced the rent by Rs.1,900/- on Rs.19,000/- and not on Rs.25,000/-. Consequently, the plaintiff was left with no alternative but to serve a Notice calling upon the defendant to pay the rent at the increased rate of Rs.25,000/- w.e.f. 07th December, 1987. The plaintiff, however, has restricted the arrears of enhanced rent as legally recoverable for the past three years.

6. It is further asserted that no fresh Lease Agreement was executed by the defendant and the lease stood determined by efflux of time and the occupation of the defendant became illegal and unauthorized after 31st March, 1989. The plaintiff served a Notice dated 04th February, 1989 seeking possession and arrears of enhanced rent in response to which an illegal and erroneous reply was given by the defendant.

7. The plaintiff further asserted that the property in question could fetch a rent at the rate of Rs.16/- per sq. ft. The area of tenanted premises was about 15,000 sq. ft. and thus capable of getting rent of Rs.2,40,000/- per month.

8. Hence commences the chequered journey of litigation. This suit was filed for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits in the year 1989,before this Court. On account of change of pecuniary jurisdiction, the case got transferred to the District Courts on 26th August, 1993 where the suit remained pending till 05th December, 2012. The issues were framed on 09th May, 1995 by the learned Additional District Judge. While the case was pending, the parties arrived at a Settlement on 31st May, 2001 and the possession of the property in question was delivered to the plaintiff on 31st January, 2002.

9. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") dated 21st February, 2012, which was allowed leading to enhancement of the suit valuation. Consequently, vide Order dated 05th December, 2012, the suit was returned by the District Court under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, 1908 to be prese