Delhi District Court
Uco Bank vs Palapettly Mohammad And Another'S ... on 10 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT;ADJ(CENTRAL)-17, DELHI
Suit No. 315/11
Unique I.D No. 02401C1204902008
1. Sh. Ram Prakash Kakkar
S/o Sh. Atma Prakash
2. Sh. Gian Prakash Kakkar
S/o Sh. Atma Prakash
3. Sh. Ved Prakash Kakkar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
4. Sh. Vinod Kumar Kakkar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
All residents of C-6/1,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110 051 ......P l a i n t i f f s
Versus
1. UCO Bank, Krishan Nagar Branch
C-6/1, Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110 051
Service be effected through its
Chief Manager
2. UCO Bank, Head Office, 10 BTM Sarani,
Brahourne Road, Kolkatta-700 001,
Service be effected through its
Chairman .......D e f e n d a n t s
Date of Institution of Suit : 18.09.2008
Date when reserved for orders : 08.04.2013
Date of Decision : 10.04.2013
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, I shall decide a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits / damages filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The brief fact necessitated in filing the present suit are given as under:-
Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 1 of 17 2 That plaintiffs are the owner of premises No. C-6/1, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051. The predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs had let out the ground floor of the suit premises measuring 1517.3 sq. ft. to defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 27,948.50p/- vide lease deed dated 09.10.1998 for a period of 5 years with an option of renewal for further period of 5 years with increase of 25% of agreed rent. The said lease was extended for a further period of 5 years w.e.f. 01.10.2002 and monthly rent was agreed as Rs. 34,935.64/- per month.
3 The plaintiffs informed the defendant about expiry of lease period orally as well as in writing and requested them to arrange some alternative premises for shifting the bank. Plaintiffs had written a letter dated 07.05.2007 and 21.05.2007 for vacating the tenanted premises on or before 30.09.2007. But defendants failed to vacate the premises on the expiry of the lease deed. The plaintiffs also served a legal notice dated 06.08.2007 upon the defendants for vacating the suit premises as well as for claiming mesne profit of the premises but the defendants have neither vacated the premises nor paid the damages/ mesne profit for its unauthorized occupation. As per the plaintiffs, the market value of the similarly situated property is around Rs.100 per sq. ft. On the basis of the aforesaid averment, present suit has been filed for adjudication.
4 The defendant appeared and field their written statement taking preliminary objection that suit is without any valid cause of action; that suit has not been filed by and on behalf of the co-owners of the premises; that suit has not been correctly valued and appropriate court fees has not been affixed; that plaintiffs are not entitled to claim mesne profit as at no point of time the tenancy of the defendants was terminated by the plaintiffs; that plaintiff has failed to comply the statutory provisions of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 2 of 17 Act; that lease of tenanted premises is for more than 25 years and is to continue so long as defendant pay the rent and comply with the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.
5 On merit it is admitted that defendants were inducted as tenant vide a lease deed executed by Sh. Atam Prakash, Sh. Om Prakash, Smt. Ditti and Smt. Leelawanti in favour of defendant on 09.10.1997. It is averred that defendant are running its bank in the suit premises for the last more than 25 years and during the said period, the lease deed was renewed on oral mutual understanding. It is further averred that the original owners/ lessers had opened a joint account alongwith their sons on 05.07.1998 and asked the defendants to deposit the monthly rent amount directly in their joint account. The defendants has always deposited the monthly rent of the premises proportionately in the joint account of original owners. It is denied that plaintiff has asked the defendants for shifting the branch. It is stated that plaintiffs never sent letter dated 07.05.2007 and 21.05.2007 to the defendant to vacate the suit premises. It is further stated that plaintiffs never assured the defendant to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.09.2007. It is denied that notice dated 06.08.2007 was served upon the defendant. It is further averred that plaintiffs and other legal heirs renewed the tenancy of the defendant orally in July 2007 for further period of 5 years with an increase of 25% monthly rent and assured to execute lease deed on or before 30.09.2007. The said increase of 25% rent was subject to execution of lease deed by all the legal heirs but they have failed to execute the lease deed in favour of the defendant. It is further stated that defendants are not in unauthorized occupation of the premises. It is denied that defendants are liable to pay mesne profit @ 80 per sq. ft. w.e.f. 01.10.2007 onwards. It is stated that in the same locality many banks have taken the premises on lease Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 3 of 17 and the prevalent market rent in that area is Rs. 30/- to Rs. 35/- sq. ft. subject to location, condition and facilities. It is denied that prevalent market rent in the said area is Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. It is also denied that suit premises can be let out @ Rs. 125/- sq. ft. easily. All other averments have been denied. It is prayed that suit be dismissed with cost.
6 Plaintiffs have filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, thereby reiterated the averment made in the plaint and denied the averment made in the written statement.
7 After completion of the pleading, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The said application has been disposed off by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 26.02.2010 on the basis of the compromise arrived between the parties and a preliminary decree for possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to which defendants have handed over the possession to the plaintiff on 31.01.2011.
8 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 13.04.2010 has framed the following or adjudication:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits/ damages relating to the suit premises as against the defendants, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the mesne profits/ damages, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief.
8 In order to prove their case, plaintiff no. 1 has examined himself as Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 4 of 17
PW-1 and reiterated the averment made in the plaint in his examination in chief. PW-1 has exhibited the site plan as Ex.PW1/1, Copy of letter dated 30.06.1998 as Ex.PW1/2, letter dated 07.05.2007, letter dated 21.05.2007 as Ex.PW1/3 & 4, notice dated 06.08.2007 as Ex.PW1/5, UPC Ex.PW1/6, notice dated 01.11.2007 is Ex.PW1/7, Postal receipt Ex.PW1/8, UPC is Ex.PW1/9, AD Card is Ex.PW1/10 & 11, notice dated 23.02.2008 is Ex.PW1/12, Postal receipt is Ex.PW1/13, AD Card is Ex. PW1/14 to 16, notice dated 01.08.2007 as Ex.PW1/17, postal receipt is Ex.PW1/18, UPC is Ex.PW1/19, AD Card is Ex.PW1/20 to 24, Certified copy of the lease deed dated 09.07.1998 is Ex.PW1/27.
10 During cross examination, PW-1 briefly deposed that suit premises was let out by his father and his brother to the defendant in the year 1982. He admitted that his father alongwith his brother opened separate joint account in the bank in 1998. He admitted that defendant used to deposit the rent in the joint account as per their share. He denied that suit premises was in dilapidated condition as they have never got maintained during the tenancy period. He also denied that an oral understanding was arrived between the plaintiff and defendant in the year 2007 whereby it was agreed that the tenancy of the defendant shall be continued for further 5 years subject to enhancement of rent by 25%. He denied that open passage was for the exclusive use of the defendant. He admitted that he is running a restaurant in the suit premises. He denied that he was keeping his good regarding the restaurant in the said open space. He admitted that he used to park his motor cycle in the said open space. He denied that he had not written letter dated 30.06.1998, 07.05.2007 and 21.05.2007 to the defendant. He also denied that notice Ex.PW1/5 was not sent through UPC Ex.PW1/6 and same is fabricated document. He also denied that AD card does not bear the Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 5 of 17 signatures of any of the official of the bank. He also denied that he himself put the seal of the bank on the AD card as he is residing at the upstairs of the premises. He admitted that other banks are also functioning in the vicinity apart from the defendant. He denied that prevalent rent in the area in question in the year 2006-2007 was not more than Rs.35-40/- per sq. ft. He denied that he is not entitled to claim mesne profit @ 80 per sq. ft. as claimed by him from defendant from 01.10.2007 onwards. He has not placed any document on recored to show the suit property falls in commercial area. He denied that an amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid by the defendant was not towards the rent but as per the court order.
11 In order to answer the claim of the plaintiffs, defendants have examined Sh. Bhim Sain, Manager, as DW-1 who reiterated the averment made in the written statement in his examination in chief. The DW-1 exhibited the Lease Deed dated 11.10.1982 as Ex.DW1/1, Seven photographs as Ex.DW1/3 to Ex.DW1/9, Certified copy of lease deed dated 29.08.2008 as Ex.DW1/10, another lease deed dated 12.01.2009 as Ex.DW1/11.
12 During cross examination, DW-1 briefly deposed that he joined the branch of Krishna Nagar as Chief Manager on 16.08.2010. As per the record, two times the lease deed of the suit property were executed with the bank.
The last lease deed was expired in the year 2007. He does not know if defendant had taken any action for seeking renewal of the lease deed before the expiry of said lease deed in September, 2007. He has not come across with any record in which any communication was made between defendant and plaintiff regarding renewal of lease deed. He volunteered that he talked with the plaintiff orally regarding the renewal of the lease deed in 2010. He further stated that it is not in his knowledge that plaintiff called upon the Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 6 of 17 defendant to vacate the premises as the lease deed going to expire. He admitted that Ex.PW1/5 & 6 bears the correct address of bank. As per the record, notice Ex. PW1/5 was not received by the bank. He further stated that Ex.PW1/7 to 11 bears the correct address of the bank. He further deposed that as per the record, notice Ex.PW1/7 has not been received by their branch. He admitted that AD Ex.PW1/12 bears the seal of defendant. AD Card Ex.PW1/10 also bears the seal of ADM of defendant. He further stated that Ex.PW1/17 bears the correct address of the defendant bank and AD card Ex.PW1/20 to 24 also bears the correct address and seal of the defendant. As per the record, notices sent by the plaintiff was not received. He further stated that portion under occupation of the defendant was 1573 sq. ft. The prevalent rate of rent of the similar situated property in the vicinity was around 30-40 per sq. ft. He came to know about the said rent after verification from Punjab & Sind Bank and Punjab National Bank. He further stated that they have taken a portion as a tenant on the main road admeasuring 1130 sq. ft. on a monthly rent of Rs. 96,500/- per month. The said portion is at the distance of 200 meter from the suit property. He admitted that lease deed Ex.DW1/P1 is the same lease deed with respect to the property taken by the defendant on rent. He denied that prevalent rate of rent in the vicinity of the suit property was around Rs. 100 per sq. ft. He also denied that defendant was under
unauthorized occupation after September 2007. He also denied that plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profit @ Rs. 80 per sq. ft. alongwith interest w.e.f. 01.10.2007.
13 Defendants have also examined Sh. Sachin Kumar Tyagi, Reader at Sub-registrar Office as DW-2 who brought the original record of lease deed Ex.DW1/10 & 11.
Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 7 of 17 14 The defendants also examined Sh. Vijay Kumar, Clerk from Punjab
National Bank, Vijay Chowk, Krishna Nagar. The said witness brought the record of lease deed dated 29.08.2008 Ex.DW1/10. During cross examination, he deposed that he does not know if the branch is functioning at the address since 1975. He does not know anythin about the execution of the lease deed Ex.DW1/10. He admitted that there is no separate parking in the premises in which their bank is running. He is not aware if the road in front of their bank is 30 ft. wide.
15 The defendants have also examined Sh. Sujeet Singh from Punjab & Sind Bank as DW-4, during examination in chief he deposed that he has posted at Punjab & Sind Bank, Krishna Nagar branch since 30.04.2012. The lease deed Ex.PW1/11 pertains to the premises of their bank. He does not know since when this branch is functioning at the address mentioned in lease deed Ex.DW1/11. During cross examination, said witness deposed that it may be possible that their bank is functioning in the same premises since 1980. He is not aware about the prevalent rate of rent of the premises. The area where the bank is situated is residential as well as commercial. There is no parking facility in the premises.
16 I have heard both the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, evidence and other material placed on record. My issue wise findings are as under:-
17 ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits/ damages relating to the suit premises as against the defendants, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP The plaintiffs have taken a plea that defendants were inducted as a Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 8 of 17 tenant in the suit premises bearing No. C-6/1, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51. The tenancy of the defendant has come to an end by efflux of time under Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiffs also called upon the defendants to hand over the possession of the premises on or before 30.09.2007 vide legal notice dated 06.08.2007. Despite the termination of the tenancy of the defendants by efflux of time as well as vide legal notice dated 06.08.2007, the defendants have failed to vacate the tenanted premises, therefore, the occupation of the defendants in the suit premises with effect from 01.10.2007 is illegal for which they are liable to pay mesne profit/ damages. As per the plaintiffs, the suit premises could have fetched rent @ Rs. 80 per sq. ft. in the year 2007, thus plaintiffs have claimed mesne profit/ damages from defendants @ Rs. 1,21,400/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2007 till the vacation of the suit premises.
18 The defendants have taken a plea that they were inducted as tenant in the suit premises vide lease deed and they continue to occupy the suit premises as a tenant and paid the agreed rent till the vacation of the suit premises on 29.01.2011. As per the defendants, the plaintiffs have never terminated their tenancy at any point of time and their occupation in the suit premises was lawful, therefore, they are not liable to pay any damages/ mesne profit. They further taken a plea that suit premises could not have fetched the rent as claimed by the plaintiffs.
19 Both the parties have led their respective evidence in support of their plea.
20 The plaintiffs have claimed mesne profit / damages w.e.f. 01.10.2007 onward on the premises that the tenancy of the defendants was terminated by Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 9 of 17 efflux of time as well as by legal notice dated 06.08.2007 Ex.PW1/5 with the expiry of 30.09.2007. The defendants have taken a plea that their tenancy has never been terminated by the plaintiffs and they occupied the premises as lawful tenant and their occupation was never unauthorized.
21 Both the parties have led their respective evidence in order to substantiate their plea.
22 An examination of the pleading and evidence led on record shows that plaintiffs have claimed mense profit / damages w.e.f. 01.10.2007 from defendants on the ground they failed to vacate the tenanted premises despite the termination of their tenancy by efflux of time as well as by legal notice Ex.PW1/5. As per the plaintiffs, the occupation of the defendants in the suit premises from 01.10.2007 was unauthorized and illegal for which defendants are liable to pay damages.
23 On the other hand, defendants have taken a plea that their tenancy was never terminated by the plaintiff as per the law and they continue to occupy the suit premises as a tenant and not as an unauthorized occupant. The defendants have sought to raise a plea that the legal notice Ex.PW1/5 was not served upon them. They have also disputed the receipt of legal notice dated 01.11.2007 Ex.PW1/7, dated 23.02.2007 Ex.PW1/12 and dated 01.08.2008 Ex.PW1/17 on the ground that they had not received the said legal notice.
24 The notice dated 06.08.2007 Ex.PW1/5 was sent at the address of the defendant through UPC only and not by registered post. But the legal notice dated 01.11.2007, 23.02.2008 and 01.08.2008 were sent at the correct address of the defendant through registered post as well as UPC and the Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 10 of 17 acknowledgment card bearing the signatures of the employee of the defendants were also received. The defendant has not disputed the address mentioned over the notice Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/17 which were sent through registered post.
25 The requirement of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is that the notice must be in writing and it must be signed by the party by the person giving it, it must be sent by post or delivered personally. In this case notice Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/17 were sent by post to the defendants. The notice dated 06.08.2007 Ex.PW1/5 was sent only through UPC and other notices were sent by registered post as well as through certificate of posting at the correct address of the defendants. Under Section 114 of Illustration (f) of Indian Evidence Act " the court may presume that the common course of business has been follow in particular case. In other words, if the question is whether notice was served, it may be shown to have posted and in the common course of business the notice would be deemed to have delivered to the addressee. This raises a presumption of fact which is however, rebuttable. In the present case, the notice Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/17 have been sent in the cover containing correct address of the defendants, the notice Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/17 have been sent through registered post containing correct address of the defendants so these notices presumed to have delivered to the defendants. "
26 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.C.Alavj Haji vs. Palapettly Mohammad and Another's reported as 2007 (6) SCC 555 has held that "Section 27 gives rise to presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stated that a notice has been sent by a registered Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 11 of 17 post to the address of the drawer, it is not necessary to further averred in the complaint that in spite of return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the address is deemed to have the knowledge of notice.
Until and unless, the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This court has already held that when the notice is sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement "Refused" or "Not Available in the house" or "House locked" or "Shop closed" or "Addressee not in Station" - due service has to be presumed."
27 In view of above well settled legal preposition, it is amply clear that when a notice is sent at the correct address of the defendant through registered post then the said notice is presumed to have been served. In such cases a presumption of due service arises as per Section 114 (f) of Indian Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clause Act which would not be rebutted by mere denial of the defendants. The defendants must produced some other cogent evidence to show that usual course of post was interrupted by disturbance. They must have proved other circumstances to show that notice was never received by them.
28 The defendants, however, have not placed any material whatsoever on record which can show or suggest that usual course of post was interrupted by the plaintiffs or that the notices sent by the plaintiffs were not received by the defendants. The notice Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/17 have been sent through registered post as well as UPC thus these notices are deemed to have been served upon the defendant as per the law.
Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 12 of 17 29 The notice Ex.PW1/5 was also sent through UPC Ex.PW1/6 at the
correct address of the defendants. The defendants have disputed the receipt of the said legal notice, but notices dated 01.11.2007, 23.02.2008 and 01.08.2008 Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/17 have been has been sent through registered post as well as UPC, thus these notices are deemed to have been served upon the defendants.
30 A perusal of notices Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/17 shows that plaintiffs have clearly mentioned in these notices that the tenancy of the defendants have been terminated vide legal notice dated 06.08.2007 as well as efflux of time. It is also mentioned that Chief Manager of defendant assured the plaintiffs to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2007 but defendants failed to vacate the same thus defendants are liable to pay damages w.e.f. 01.10.2007. All these legal notices have been served upon the defendants as per the law. Despite the same, defendants have failed to reply these notices.
31 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram" reported as 1980 RLR (Note) 44 has held that, "If plaintiff before filing suit makes serious assertions in a notice to defendant, then, defendant must not remain silent by ignoring to reply. If he does so then adverse inference may be raised against him."
32 In the present case, plaintiffs have served legal notice Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/17 upon the defendants through registered AD. These notices have been served upon the defendants as per the law. In these notices, plaintiffs have categorically mentioned that the tenancy of the defendants have been terminated by efflux of time as well as by legal notice dated 06.08.2007 Ex.PW1/5 on the expiry of 30.09.2007. The plaintiff claimed Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 13 of 17 damages from 01.10.2007. Despite the service of these legal notices as per the law, defendants have failed to reply the same, thus deemed to have admitted the fact that their tenancy had been terminated w.e.f. 30.09.2007 by efflux of time as well as by notice Ex.PW1/5. Consequently, the occupation of the defendants in the suit premises w.e.f. 01.10.2007 was unauthorized for which defendants are liable to pay mesne profit/ damages.
33 Mesne profit being in the nature of damages no invariable rule governing their award and assessment in every case can be laid down and the court may mould it according to the justice of the case. Even so, one broad principal governing the liability for mesne profit is discernible. Section 2 (12) of Code of Civil Procedures which define mesne profit to means: " those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession."
34 From a plain reading of this definition, it is clear that wrongful possession of the defendant is the very essence of a claim for mesne profit and foundation of defendants liability. Generally, the person in wrongful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property is liable for mesne profit.
35 The plaintiffs have claimed mesne profit / damages w.e.f. 01.10.2007 onward @ Rs. 1,21,400/- per month on the premises that the suit premises could have fetched rent @ Rs. 80 per sq. ft. in the year 2007. Though the plaintiffs have claimed the mesne profit @ Rs.1,21,400/- per month but they have not led any evidence whatsoever on record which can show or suggest Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 14 of 17 that the premises in question could have fetched rent @ Rs. 80 per sq. ft. per month in the year 2007.
36 The defendants have taken a plea that the suit premises could not have fetched that much rent in the year 2007 and in order to substantiate their plea they have placed on record lease deed Ex.DW1/10. Vide lease deed Ex.DW1/10, the premises admeasuring 4590 sq. fts. has been let out to the Punjab National Bank on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,50,732/- w.e.f. 18.05.2008. The said premises has thus been let out on a monthly rate of Rs.34.80/- per sq. ft. per month. The defendants have also placed on record another lease deed Ex.DW1/1 which was executed on 09.01.2009 w.e.f. 01.12.2006. Vide this lease deed the premises comprising 2335 sq. fts consisting of ground floor and basement has been let out @ Rs. 93,400/- per month which come to Rs. 40 per sq. ft. Both these lease deed clearly shows that a premises in the vicinity was capable to fetch rent @ Rs.40 per sq. ft. per month during the relevant time.
37 The plaintiffs have also placed on record a lease deed Ex.DW1/P1, during the cross examination of DW-1. The defendants after vacating the suit premises have taken on rent the said premises vide lease deed Ex.DW1/P1 on 18.10.2010, having carpet area of 1300 sq. fts. on a monthly rent of Rs. 92,000/- per month which come to Rs. 80 per sq. fts. The lease deed Ex.DW1/P1 cannot be taken in to consideration for deciding the mesne profit / damages prevailing in the vicinity in the year 2007 as the said lease deed was executed on 18.10.2010.
38 The aforesaid fact thus clearly shows that in all probability, the suit premises was capable to fetch rent @ Rs. 40 per sq. ft. at the relevant time Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 15 of 17 i.e. a sum of Rs. 60,680/- per month. The defendants are thus liable to pay mesne profit @ Rs. 60,680/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2007 till 31.12.2010. Admittedly, defendants have vacated the premises on 29.01.2011 and as per the order passed by the Predecessor of this Court, they paid the use and occupation charges @ Rs. 80,000/- to the plaintiff for the month of January, 2011. Thus plaintiffs are not entitled for damages for January, 2011.
39 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that plaintiffs are entitled to recover mesne profit / damages against the defendants @ Rs. 60,680/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2007 till 31.12.2010. The plaintiffs have successfully discharged the onus of Issue No. 1, same is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiffs.
40 ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the mesne profits/ damages, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP The plaintiffs have claimed interest on mesne profit/ damages. It is now well settled that interest on the mesne profit and damages can also be granted in order to meet the end of justice. In the present case, the defendants had been in continuous unauthorized occupation of the suit premises after the termination of their tenancy and has not paid the mesne profit/ damages to the plaintiffs, thus, defendants have withheld the legally recoverable amount of the plaintiff without any reasonable cause.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be served, if plaintiffs are awarded interest @ 12 % per annum (Simple) on the mesne profit so granted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have discharged the onus of Issue No. 2, same is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 16 of 17 41 RELIEF
In view of the above, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed with cost. A decree for mesne profit/ damages @ Rs. 60,680/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2010 is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants along with interest @ 12 % per annum (Simple) till the date of making the payment. However, the amount already paid by the defendants for their use and occupation to the plaintiffs shall be adjusted. The plaintiffs are directed to pay deficient court fees, if any. On making the payment of deficient court fees, decree sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT)
On the 10.04.2013 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit no. 315/11 Page no. 17 of 17