The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for authentic data and correct valuation methods in determining market value, as emphasized by the Indian Evidence Act and principles of care and caution in accepting expert opinions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ambrish Rai as well as Shri Dipak Seth, learned counsels for the respondents.

2. The instant revision has been filed praying for the following main relief(s) :

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2011 in part to the extent it denies the damages of Rs.40,000/- P.M. and interest @18% thereon, passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Special Judge(Ayurved Scam Matter) Additional District Judge, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.61 of 2009; Smt. Darshan Versus Bharat Sangh and others, contained with this revision only and to direct the respondent to pay the damages as claimed by revisionist Rs.40,000/-per month with interest @18% P.A. thereon to the revisionist from the month of September 2008 till vacation of the House in question and allow this Revision to this extent only."

3. The case set forth by the revisionist is that the house in dispute had been given to the respondent no. 2 on rent on 08.07.1998. A lease agreement had been executed for a period of 5 years upto 07.04.2003 and the agreed rent was Rs.14,673/-per month. Despite the lease having come to an end, the respondents did not vacate the premises in question. However the revisionist continued to accept the rent, as had been agreed to in terms of the lease agreement which was accepted upto September 2008. As the respondents were not vacating the premises in question, consequently the revisionist was constrained to file an SCC Suit No. 61 of 2009 in re: Smt Darshan vs. Bharat Shangh and others before the court below praying for ejectment and damages @40,000/-per month with interest.

4. So far as the instant revision is concerned the same is only confined to the quantum of damages as has been awarded by the court below vide the impugned judgement and order dated 24.02.2011 in as much as it is admitted that the premises in question have already been vacated by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the court below has passed the impugned judgement and order dated 24.02.2011 whereby so far as the damages were concerned it rejected the registered valuers' report on the basis of which damages of Rs.40,000/-per month had been claimed by the revisionist and the court on its own accord has fixed the damages @ Rs.20,000/-per month. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the order impugned would indicate the damages of Rs.40,000/- as has been claimed by the revisionist were made as point no. 2 by the court below while deciding the matter. The court has considered the valuers' report but has rejected the same on the ground that (a) the report does not appear to be a public document, (b) the report of the valuer is based upon his own opinion and cannot be considered to be final and (c) the report is not corroborated from the CPWD or collectorate department.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that when he had filed the registered valuers' report, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 4 to the revision, and the valuer had also been examined by the court below as such rejection of his report in such a cursory manner could not have been done, more particularly when the respondents had failed to produce any evidence to controvert the registered valuers' report. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Spl. L.A.O. South Goa and others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1414 which has been referred to by this Court in the case of Smt. Padma Tandon vs. District Judge, Allahabad and others reported in 2009 (1) ALJ 54.

7. Placing reliance on the judgement of Nelson Fernandes (Supra) learned counsel for the revisionist argues that the court below could not have rejected the report of the registered valuer and once the report had been given by an expert as such credence should have been given by the court bel