2022/DHC/005577

CS(OS) 597/2013

Page 1 of 25

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 02^nd June, 2022

Pronounced on:15^th December, 2022

+

CS(OS) 597/2013

M/S AMRIT ESTATES (P) LTD.

Registered office at A-3,

Kailash Colony, New Delhi

through its director Shri Balbir Singh Kohli

.....Plaintiff

Represented by:

Mr. Harshvir Singh Kohli,

Advocate.

versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

7, Bhikaji Cama Palace,

New Delhi

Through its Chairman/Managing Director

.....Defendant

Represented by:

Mr. Gagan Mathur, Mr. M.D.

Jangra, Mr. Varun Kumar &

Mr. Shitanshu, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G E M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1.

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 01^st April, 1989 to 31^st January,

2002 by way of amended plaint dated 26^th February, 2013/25^th May, 2017.

Signed By:PRIYANKA

ANEJA

Signing Date:15.12.2022

18:13:56

Signature Not Verified

2022/DHC/005577

CS(OS) 597/2013

Page 2 of 25

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

31^st 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 07^th 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 07^th December, 1979, the

premises were agreed to be let out for three years, commencing from 02^nd

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

Signed By:PRIYANKA

ANEJA

Signing Date:15.12.2022

18:13:56

Signature Not Verified

2022/DHC/005577

CS(OS) 597/2013

Page 3 of 25

defendant to pay the rent at the increased rate of Rs.25,000/- w.e.f. 07^th

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 31^st

March, 1989. The plaintiff served a Notice dated 04^th 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.2,40,00