Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Dutta vs Pritpal Singh on 4 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK:
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO.543/22
CNR NO.DLWT01-005542-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
ANIL KUMAR DUTTA
S/O SH. JAGDISH CHANDER
R/O AC-19, GANGA RAM VATIKA,
TILAK NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110018
.......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PRITPAL SINGH
S/O SH. KAWALJEET SINGH
R/O 4B/11, THIRD FLOOR,
TILAK NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110018
.......DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT : 08.06.2022
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 05.06.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 04.07.2024
DECISION : SUIT DECREED
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit by a landlord against the tenant seeking the recovery of possession, permanent injunction, damages and mesne profit.
CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 1 of 20Plaint/ Plaintiff's version
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are;
(a) Plaintiff Anil Kumar Dutta claims himself to be the owner and landlord of the third floor of property bearing No. 4-B/11, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018, measuring 200 sq yards, along with a car parking on stilt floor (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that he inducted the defendant as a tenant in the suit property consisting of three rooms with attached toilets and a kitchen for a limited period of two years after executing a registered lease deed dated 10.12.2020.
(b) In terms of the lease deed, it was agreed upon that the tenancy would last for 24 months and it would commence on 10.12.2020 and end on 09.12.2022. Parties agreed that monthly rent of the property would be Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) excluding electricity and water charges. Defendant deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with the plaintiff as interest-free security with an understanding that the same shall be refundable at the time of termination of tenancy. He also paid advance rent for the first month of tenancy.
(c) The plaintiff's case proceeds further that defendant was irregular in paying the rent and he stopped paying the rent from the month of May 2021 onwards. Plaintiff has alleged that defendant issued two separate cheques towards the rent for the month of May and June 2021 but the same were dishonoured. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 17.08.2021 to the defendant demanding the payment of the cheque amount but the amount remained unpaid. He initiated legal proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act and also lodged a complaint at the local police station.
CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 2 of 20(d) Plaintiff has claimed that defendant was in arrears of rent from the month of July 2021. He terminated the tenancy by issuing a legal notice dated 04.02.2022 but the defendant failed to hand over the possession of the suit property. Plaintiff has disclosed that defendant has been raising an illegal demand of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac only) for vacating the suit property. He has further claimed that the rent deed contained a provision that if the defendant fails to hand over the possession of the suit property after the termination of tenancy, he would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per day as damages in addition to the monthly rent. By filing the present suit, plaintiff has sought possession of the suit property, arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits.
Written Statement/ Defendant's version
3. Defendant was served through ordinary process. He contested the suit by filing the written statement. He denied the landlord tenant relationship and presented a different version of the entire transaction. He claimed to have purchased the suit property. He mentioned that plaintiff approached him with a proposal to sell the suit property against a sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Lac only) as he was in urgent need of money. He mentioned that he accepted the offer of the plaintiff after verifying the market value of the suit property. He stated that he paid a cash amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiff and handed over two blank cheques towards the balance sale consideration. He mentioned that it was mutually agreed that plaintiff would inform him before presenting the said cheques. He admitted the execution and registration of the rent deed but claimed that the same was done fraudulently. He claimed CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 3 of 20 that plaintiff took him to the office of concerned Sub-Registrar on the pretext of executing the sale deed of the suit property. He conveyed that he executed the rent deed under an impression that he was executing the sale deed of the property. He denied the service of legal notice and also denied being in arrears of rent. He conveyed that he was not liable to pay the rent of the suit property as his status is that of a vendee and not a tenant. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Issues
4. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for possession as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest ? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.1000/- per day amounting to Rs.3,65,000/- till the physical vacant possession of the property? OPP (4) Whether the defendant has never taken the suit property on rent and rather he has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff by paying the proper sale consideration? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff has properly valued the present suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPP.
(6) Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
5. Plaintiff examined three witnesses.
CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 4 of 20
6. PW-1/Anil Kumar Dutta (plaintiff) supported the contents of the plaint by filing his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A) and relied on the following documents:-
(a) Rent Deed dated 10.12.2020 (Ex.PW-1/1);
(b) Legal Notice dated 04.02.2022 (Ex.PW-1/2);
(c) Complaints dated 12.08.2021 and 11.11.2021 made by the plaintiff to the local police station (Ex.PW-1/3 & 4 respectively);
7. PW-2/Anil (Senior Assistant, Office of Sub-Registrar-IIB, Janak Puri, Delhi) produced the registered rent deed (Ex.PW-1/1). It was found that the rent agreement was duly registered on 17.12.2020 vide Registration No.19185, Book No.1, Vol.5818 on pages number 46 to 50.
8. PW-3/Ramanjeet Singh (witness of the rent deed) filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW-3/A). He stated that he is working as Property Dealer at Tilak Nagar, Delhi. He mentioned that defendant approached him for taking the suit property on rent. He stated that the rent agreement was executed by the parties and he signed the same as an attesting witness.
Defendant's Evidence
9. Defendant examined only one witness.
10. DW-1/Pritpal Singh (defendant) filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.DW-1/A). He did not tender any document. He admitted in cross-examination that the two cheques, given by him to the plaintiff, were of Rs.40,000/- each. He admitted that on the force of those dishonoured cheques, plaintiff launched proceedings under Section 138 of the CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 5 of 20 Negotiable Instrument Act. He mentioned that during the course of the said proceedings, he made a payment of Rs.80,000/- to the plaintiff and signed the receipt (Ex.DW-1/X1). His detailed cross-examination shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
Arguments
11. Final arguments were heard.
Arguments of the plaintiff
12. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the material on record establishes that defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff. He mentioned that defendant's tenancy was duly terminated but he failed to hand over the possession of the suit property. He submitted that plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent. He contended that defendant is also liable to pay damages and mesne profits for remaining in illegal possession of the suit property after the termination of tenancy. He argued that defendant has set up a false defence that he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff. He contended that not even a single document has been placed on record to support the said submissions. He mentioned that there are contradictions in the testimony of the defendant. He argued that defendant has no defence to the plaintiff's claim. He mentioned that the plaintiff's claim stands established and the suit may be decreed.
Arguments of the defendant
13. On the other hand, counsel for defendant submitted that the tenancy is disputed. He mentioned that plaintiff concealed material facts from the court. He mentioned that plaintiff sold the suit property to the defendant CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 6 of 20 against a valid consideration. He mentioned that towards the agreed sale consideration, defendant paid a cash amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiff. He contended that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant were that of a vendor and vendee. He mentioned that defendant was not liable to pay rent of the suit property. He argued that the lease deed was executed fraudulently and the same cannot be read in evidence. He mentioned that no dues of rent were payable. He prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
14. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
Issue-wise Findings
15. The issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiff has properly valued the present suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPP
16. The onus of this issue was placed on the plaintiff. Record shows that although, plaintiff mentioned in the subject of the plaint that it is a suit for eviction, permanent injunction, damages and mesne profit but the prayer clause did not contain the relief of permanent injunction. This, by necessary implication, means that plaintiff did not seek the relief of permanent injunction and only sought the relief of possession of the suit property and damages. Section 7(xi) of the Court Fees Act states that in a suit by a landlord against the tenant for the recovery of possession of the tenanted property, court fee shall be payable on the yearly rent payable for the year next before presenting the plaint. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 provides that in such cases, the valuation shall remain same for CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 7 of 20 the purpose of jurisdiction. Record shows that plaintiff has valued the relief of possession at Rs.4,80,000/- (Rupees Four Lac and Eight Thousand only), which is equivalent to the yearly rent for the preceding year calculated at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month. He has paid ad-valorem court fee on the said amount as well as the amount of damages. The suit has been properly valued and the appropriate court fee has been affixed. In view of this, issue No.5 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for possession as prayed for? OPP Issue No.4: Whether the defendant has never taken the suit property on rent and rather he has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff by paying the proper sale consideration? OPD
17. Both the issues are taken up together as they are interconnected. The onus of issue No.1 was placed on the plaintiff while the onus of issue No.4 was placed on the defendant. In order to establish his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and supported the averments made in the plaint. He mentioned that the suit property was rented out to the defendant on a rent of Rs.40,000/- per month. He deposed that the terms of the lease were incorporated in the registered rent agreement dated 17.12.2020. The registered rent agreement has been placed on record. PW-2/Anil, Senior Assistant from the Office of Sub-Registrar-IIB, Janak Puri, Delhi stepped into the witness-box and proved the authenticity of the rent-deed. Defendant has not posed any question to this witness which may cast doubts over the process of registration.
CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 8 of 2018. It stands recorded in the rent agreement that the tenancy has been created for a limited period of 24 months commencing from 10.12.2020 to 09.12.2022. There is overwhelming evidence to demonstrate that defendant took the suit property on rent for a limited period of 24 months on an agreed rent of Rs.40,000/- per month. However, he failed to comply with the terms of the rent agreement and stopped paying the rent. Resultantly, plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing legal notice dated 04.02.2022 but defendant failed to hand over the possession of the suit property. Plaintiff has deposed that he terminated the tenancy after the defendant stopped paying the rent from the month of July 2021. The legal notice whereby the lease was terminated has been placed on record. Defendant has disputed the service of legal notice.
19. It can be seen from the record that defendant has primarily taken three grounds to resist the decree of possession; First, that he was never inducted as a tenant in the suit property and his status was that of vendee; Second, that the notice of termination of tenancy was not served and; Third, that plaintiff has not placed on record documents to show his ownership of the suit property. None of these pleas are legally sustainable. These pleas can be outrightly rejected. Defendant cannot resist a decree of possession on these grounds.
20. Coming to the first plea of the defendant that he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff. Defendant claimed that he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lac only). He claimed to have paid a cash amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lac only) to the plaintiff towards the purported sale CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 9 of 20 consideration. He came up with a version that he handed over two blank cheques to the plaintiff with an understanding that the same shall be used for the payment of the balance sale consideration. However, no evidence was led by him to establish that the cash amount was paid to the plaintiff at any point of time. Defendant admitted in cross-examination that he did not take receipt from the plaintiff in respect of the alleged cash payment. He also admitted that no agreement-to-sell was executed between him and the plaintiff. He mentioned that the payment was given by him in the presence of his mother and sister. Surprisingly, neither the mother nor the sister was examined as witness.
21. There is evidence to demonstrate that defendant issued two cheques towards the payment of rent. It is an admitted case of the defendant that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, he entered into a settlement with the plaintiff and paid him a sum of Rs.80,000/- and signed the receipt (Ex.DW-1/X1). The certified copy of the receipt is on record. During cross examination, plaintiff confronted the defendant with the said receipt and he admitted his signatures on the same. It stands mentioned in the receipt that defendant was making the payment towards the monthly rent for the month of May 2021 and June 2021. It amounts to an admission of the defendant about the rate of rent. It also falsifies his argument that the cheques were issued towards the balance sale consideration amount. It becomes obvious that defendant has taken a false plea. The same deserves to be rejected.
22. Defendant tried to wriggle out of the registered rent deed by taking a false and bogus plea that he signed the same under an impression that he CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 10 of 20 was executing the sale deed of the suit property. He claimed that he signed the registered lease deed on account of the fraud committed by the plaintiff. He admitted in cross-examination that he did not file any complaint against the plaintiff for the alleged forgery. It is also an admitted position that till date, he has not lodged any proceedings either for the specific performance of the purported oral agreement-to-sell or for the recovery of the cash amount from the plaintiff. The reason is obvious. The pleas are false and baseless. There is no evidence to establish that the execution and the registration of the rent deed were perpetrated by fraud.
23. Coming to the second plea of defendant that he was not served with the notice of termination of tenancy. Record reveals that notice was sent at the correct address of the defendant. Defendant was served with the summons of the suit at the same address. In such circumstances, the plea about the non-service of notice appears to be false. Further, it has been held in the matter of "Jeevan Diesel Vs Jasbir Singh Chadha" 182 (2011) DLT 402 that service of summons of a suit for possession by itself is sufficient notice to the tenant and, therefore, denial of notice by tenant is of no consequence. Thus, the denial of service of notice does not advance the cause of defendant.
24. The third plea of the defendant that plaintiff's case should fail because he has failed to place on record the documents of ownership of the suit property is erroneous. Although, this ground was not taken in the written statement but the same was raised during the course of arguments. Questions were also put to the plaintiff in cross-examination to highlight the aspect that he has not placed on record the original documents of the CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 11 of 20 suit property. It is settled preposition that the question of the title of landlord is immaterial. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 estoppes a tenant from challenging the title of the landlord. The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Mangat Ram Vs Sardar Mehartan Singh" (1987) 4 SCC 319 and "Anar Devi (Smt.) Vs Nathu Ram" (1994) 4 SSC 251. In the later case, Supreme Court of India observed:
"13. This Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, has also ruled that in a suit for eviction by landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord because of Section 116 of the Act. The Judicial Committee in Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Deo Vs Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd., when had occasion to examine the contention based on the words 'at the beginning of the tenancy' in Section 116 of the Evidence Act, pronounced that they do not give a ground for a person already in possession of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that there is no estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor's title. Ever since, the accepted position is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies and estops even a person already in possession as tenant under one landlord from denying the title of his subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as his landlord by attornment or conduct. Therefore, a tenant of immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground."
25. Thus, in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, defendant is estopped from denying or questioning the ownership of the plaintiff.
CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 12 of 20Admittedly, defendant is a tenant in the suit property, who came in possession of the property only through the plaintiff. The challenge to the ownership of the plaintiff and his entitlement to file the present suit are not legal pleas and the same are liable to be rejected.
26. In view of the discussions made in the afore-mentioned paras, none of the pleas raised by the defendant are legally sustainable. It has been held in the matter of "Pradeep Khanna Vs Renu Khetrapal" (RFA No.638/2014, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 10.04.2015) that a tenant, whose tenancy has been terminated, should not be allowed to continue to occupy the premises on the basis of bogus and false defence. In this matter, the High Court cited with approval various case laws which are squarely applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case. Some of the decisions cited by the High Court of Delhi are;
"20.1 In 'Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria', the Supreme Court held that false claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. The Supreme Court held as under:-
"False claims and false defences"
84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 13 of 20 extent."
20.2 In 'Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010)' 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences.
However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 14 of 20 final."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.3 In 'Satyender Singh v. Gulab Singh' 2012 (129) DRJ 128, the Division Bench of this Court following Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) observed that the Courts are flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties due to which the judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming Courts' time for a wrong cause.
The observations of this Court are as under:-
"2. As rightly observed by the Supreme Court, Satya is a basic value of life which was required to be followed by everybody and is recognized since many centuries. In spite of caution, courts are continued to be flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties. The judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming courts time for a wrong cause. Efforts are made by the parties to steal a march over their rivals by resorting to false and incoherent statements made before the Court. Indeed, it is a nightmare faced by a Trier of Facts; required to stitch a garment, when confronted with a fabric where the weft, shuttling back and forth across the warp in weaving, is nothing but lies. As the threads of the weft fall, the yarn of the warp also collapses; and there is no fabric left."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.4 In 'State Bank of Patiala v. Chander Mohan Jain' 1996 RLR 404, the Division Bench of this Court observed that it has become quite common for tenants whose tenancies have been terminated to continue occupation as trespassers and drive the landlords to file suit for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 15 of 20 may last. The observation of this Court is reproduced hereunder:-
"24. ....It has become quite common for tenants, whose tenancies have been terminated validly, to continue occupation as trespassers, drive the landlords to file suits for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last or how far the landlords or their legal representatives could fight the tenants- particularly if the tenant had stopped payment of admitted rents. It is rather unfortunate that even public sector bodies like the appellant are taking such postures and driving landlords from pillar to post..."
27. Coming back to the present case, there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the defendant that he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff. It is a settled preposition that the transaction of sale of immovable property can take place only by means of a registered instrument. No such instrument was executed by the plaintiff at any point of time. On the other hand, there is irrefutable evidence to establish that defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property. His status remained that of a tenant and was not altered on account of the alleged oral agreement to sell. There is not even an iota of evidence to demonstrate that plaintiff entered into an oral understanding with the defendant to sell the suit property. Record shows that defendant failed to pay the agreed rent and resultantly, plaintiff terminated his tenancy by giving a legal notice. In terms of the legal notice, plaintiff demanded the possession of the suit property as well as the arrears of rent. Defendant has not handed over the possession and he continues to occupy the suit property. Plaintiff, being the landlord, is entitled to receive the possession the suit property. In view of CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 16 of 20 this, issue No.1 & 4 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest ? OPP Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.1000/- per day amounting to Rs.3,65,000/- till the physical vacant possession of the property? OPP
28. The onus of both the issues was placed on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed the arrears of rent and damages. There is evidence to establish that defendant last paid the rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month. It can be seen from the record that defendant has presented contradictory versions. He stated in the written statement that the two cheques were given by him towards the balance sale consideration whereas, it turned out in the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act that the cheques were given by him towards the rent for the month of May & June 2021. The receipt (Ex.DW-1/X1) also fortifies this conclusion. The testimony of the plaintiff that defendant was in arrears of rent since the month of July 2021 has remained unrebutted.
29. Section 108 (l) of the Transfer of Property Act states that lessee is bound to pay or tender rent to the lessor or his agent. Section 108 (q) of the Act mandates that on determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to put the lessor into the possession of the property. Plaintiff, being the landlord, is entitled to receive the possession of the property and the arrears of rent. Since, defendant failed to hand over the possession of the property after CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 17 of 20 the termination of tenancy, plaintiff is also entitled to receive mesne profits for the said period. In so far as the damages are concerned, plaintiff has neither pleaded nor led evidence to show that defendant caused any damage to the suit property.
30. It is a settled preposition that in case, a tenant refuses to vacate the accommodation after his tenancy is terminated, he becomes a trespasser and liable to pay the landlord mesne profit. The same is to be assessed accordingly to the reasonable prevailing rent of the premises. If the rent represents a fair value, mesne profits may be assessed at the amount of rent but if the real value is higher than the rent, mesne profits must be assessed at a higher value. It has been held in the matter of "M/s M.C.Aggarwal HUF Vs M/s Sahara India & Anr." RFA No.458/2011, decided on 02.09.2011 by the High Court of Delhi that the entitlement of a landlord to claim mesne profits from a tenant, who is in illegal possession of the premises after the tenancy is terminated, is governed by Section 2(12) of CPC. The court observed in the matter that the tenant is obligated to pay mesne profits to the landlord till the date he delivers him the possession of the suit property. On the aspect of quantum of mesne profits, the court made the following observation:
"14. What is now therefore to be determined is that what should be the mesne profits which should be awarded to the landlord in the absence of any evidence having being led by the landlord with respect to the rents prevalent in the area. Though, it has not been argued on behalf of landlord, I would like to give benefit to the landlord for various precedents of this court and the Supreme Court which take judicial notice of increase of rent in the urban areas by applying the provisions of Section 114 & 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In my opinion, considering that the premises are CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 18 of 20 situated in one of the most centrally located commercial localities of Delhi, situated in Connaught Place, an increase of 15% per year would be awarded (and nothing has otherwise been shown to me for the increase to be lesser) during the period for which the tenant have overstayed in the tenanted premises. Putting it differently, for the first year of illegal occupation, the tenant will pay 15% increase rent over the contractual rent. For the second year of illegal occupation, 15% increase will be over the actual contractual rent plus the additional 15%. It will be accordingly for all the subsequent years of illegal occupation till the premises were vacated on 03.04.2005. I rely upon and refer to a division bench judgment of this court in the case of S.S.Kumar Vs G.R.Kathpalia & Anr. 1999 RLR 114 and in which case, the division bench has given benefit to the landlord and has taken judicial notice of increase in rent, and has accordingly, allowed mesne profits at a rate higher than the contractual rent".
31. It is established that the agreed rate of rent was Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month. Defendant is under obligation to pay the mesne profits for the period he remained in occupation of the property after the termination of the tenancy till the possession of the property is handed over to the plaintiff. Considering the fact that as a common practice, the rent of premises is usually increased yearly by 10% per annum and the lease deed (Ex.PW-1/1) also contained such a provision of enhancement, damages and mesne profits at the rate of 12% yearly increase over the contractual rent for the period subsequent to the termination of the tenancy would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, issue No.2 & 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 19 of 20Relief
32. In view of the findings given in respect of issue No.1 to 5, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff with the following reliefs:
i. A decree of possession in respect of third floor of property bearing No.4-B/11, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. ii. A decree of arrears of rent from the month of July 2021 at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month till the date of notice of termination of tenancy. iii. A decree of mesne profit at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month from the termination of tenancy with 12% yearly increase over the contractual rent till handing over of the possession of the suit property.
iv. Cost of the suit.
33. Decree sheet be prepared after furnishing of deficient court fees.
34. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 04.07.2024 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) District Judge-06 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/04.07.2024 CS No.543/2022 Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Pritpal Singh Page 20 of 20