The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fair rental value based on market rates and the rejection of unreasonable valuation reports.

JUDGMENT :

1. There were two SCC revisions filed by U.P. Export Corporation Limited and Vinay Kumar Jain, i.e., the tenants and the landlord respectively under Section – 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow whereby the suit filed by the landlord for ejectment was decreed and the tenant was directed to pay Rs.16000/-per month as damages for use and occupation of the shop in question till the date of vacation of the premises.

2. The tenant had preferred revision no.198/2005 challenging the decree for ejectment along with the quantification of damages for use and occupation of the premises. The landlord had filed civil revision no.201/2005 only against that part of the judgment of the trial court whereby it determined the mesne profits of the premises at the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet instead of Rs.50/- per square feet, as had been prayed for by the landlord.

3. This Court after noticing the facts before the learned trial court rejected the revision of the tenant but at the same time observed in para 17 & 18 of its judgment as follows :-

“17. With regard to enhancement of rent, the Court below has taken into account various exemplars filed by the revisionist to indicate the rate of rent of the adjoining buildings. In respect of the buildings leased out to Bank of Baroda as well as ICICI Bank, the landlord had permitted to raise construction and make alterations in accordance with the requirements of the Bank. In so far as the building in question was concerned, there was no such relaxation by the landlord to the tenant nor was there any fixture etc in accordance with the requirements of the revisionist. The disputed premises was only in the shape of a Hall measuring 3300 square feet of which the Court had fixed Rs.5/-per square feet taking into account the exemplars filed by the revisionist. The conclusion arrived at by the Court below in respect of the enhancement of rent is well considered and perfectly justified and does not deserve to be interfered with.

18. Looking to the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet in respect of the premises in question appears to have been rightly fixed.”

4. This Court by its order dated 25.5.2007 rejected both the revisions and directed the tenant who continued to be in possession over the shop in question and to pay the landlord a sum of Rs.16,000/-per month for use and occupation, by the 10th of each month and the tenant was also directed to vacate the premises in question by 31.12.2007.

5. The landlord being aggrieved against the determination of the mesne profits, i.e., rent at the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet and direction for payment of only Rs.16,000/-per month as damages for continued use and occupation of the shop in question, approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was converted into Civil Appeal No.5576 of 2008 [Vinay Kumar Jain and Others vs. U.P. Export Corporation Limited through its Managing Director]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeal by its order dated 08.9.2008 by making the following observations :-

“In this matter, the dispute is regarding mesne profits. The High Court had awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet. During the pendency of the SLP, we directed valuation report to be filed before us. The appellant has done so. According to the valuation report, the rate comes to Rs.29.65 per square feet.

We are of the view that Rs.5/-per square feet was a very low amount. However, as far as the correct rate to be applied, we set-aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It would be open to both the sides to file respective valuation reports and argue on that basis before the High Court.

Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to cost.”

6. In view of the matte