Court awarded mesne profits for unauthorized occupation based on prevailing lease rates, establishing entitlement despite claims of non-disclosure.

1. This suit for recovery of Rs.10,92,02,688/- towards past mesne profits along with interest, is ripe for final hearing.

2. It is not in dispute that the defendant Bank was a tenant under the plaintiff in an area of 9100 sq. ft. spread over basement, ground and first floors and terrace of Property No.54, Janpath, New Delhi w.e.f. 21^st April, 1962 till determination of tenancy and was ejected therefrom pursuant to court proceedings, on 15^th September, 2009. It is also not in dispute that no claim for mesne profits was made by the plaintiff against the defendant Bank in the ejectment proceedings.

3. The plaintiff instituted this suit on 18^th December, 2008 for recovery of past mesne profits w.e.f. the month of December, 2005 till the institution of the suit.

4. The suit having been instituted on 18^th December, 2008, the plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits from 19^th December, 2005 till 18^th December, 2008 i.e. for a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit.

5. The plaintiff in the suit, has claimed mesne profits (i) for the month of December, 2005 at Rs.137 per sq. ft.; (ii) from 1^st January, 2006 to 31^st December, 2006 at the rate of Rs.200 per sq. ft.; and, (iii) from 1^st January, 2007 to 31^st December, 2007 @ Rs.400 per sq. ft. and from 1^st January, 2008 till the institution of the suit at Rs.420 per sq. ft.

6. Needless to state, the defendant Bank contested the suit.

7. In view of the narrow compass of the controversy to be adjudicated, need to detail the pleadings of the parties is not felt and suffice it is to state that on 12^th July, 2010, the following issues were framed in the suit and the parties relegated to evidence:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain mesne profits/damages from the defendant with effect from December, 2005 and if so, at what rate of interest? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has not disclosed true and complete facts of this case? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

4. Relief.”

8. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff, in its evidence examined Mr. Shashank Bhagat, the Chairman of the plaintiff, Ms. Poonam the concerned officer from the Office of the Sub Registrar with which the lease deeds in proof of rate of mesne profits were registered and Mr. Gurgeet Singh Sawhney the property broker.

9. The senior counsel for the defendant Bank on enquiry states that the defendant Bank examined four witnesses, of which two were officials of the defendant Bank and two others are tenant and landlords of two similarly situated premises, lease deeds whereof were proved in proof of the rate of mesne profits.

10. The counsel for the plaintiff and the senior counsel for the defendant Bank have been heard.

11. The counsel for the plaintiff has referred to –

A. Ex. PW1/1, being a Lease Deed dated 29^th April, 2004 with respect to ground and mezzanine floors of 58 Janpath, let out at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq. ft. per month.

B. Ex. PW1/2, being Lease Deed dated 20^th November, 2007 with respect to ground and mezzanine floors of 52 Janpath @ Rs.392 per sq. ft. per month.

C. Ex. PW1/4, being a Lease Deed dated 25^th June, 2009 of the ground floor and upper ground floor of the premises at 66 Janpath, taken on rent by the defendant Bank after vacating the premises of the plaintiff, @ Rs.425/- per sq. ft. per month.

12. It is informed that it has come on record that owing to fall in rentals thereafter, the rate of rent was subsequently reduced to about Rs.300 per sq. ft. per month and that it has been deposed by the defendant Bank’s witness DW-4 Karan Khanna that the said rate of rent was on super area basis as compared to cove