Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Anr vs Ms Rajan Electrical P. Ltd on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD
DISTRICT JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL), THC,DELHI
CS NO. 613550/2016
CNR NO. DLCT01-002488-2015
1. Mr Ashok Kumar Agarwal
S/o Late Mr L. S. Agarwal
R/O 30 B, Malcha Marg,
New Delhi - 110021
2. Mr Harsh Agarwal
S/o Late Mr L. S. Agarwal
R/O 30 B, Malcha Marg,
New Delhi - 110021 ..... PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
M/S Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd
(A Partnership Firm)
15/1, Ground Floor,
Asif Ali Road,
New Delhi - 110002
Second Address
645, Shardhanand Marg,
(G. B Road)
Delhi-110006
Third Address
M-2, Green Part Extension,
New Delhi-110016 ..... DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 19.10.2015.
Date of reserving judgment : 22.01.2026.
Date of judgment : 30.01.2026.
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 1/26
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages and future mesne profits/damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property against the defendant pleading inte- alia as follows:-
i. That both the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and landlords of the property bearing no 15/1, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
ii. That the defendant is a tenant of the Plaintiffs in respect of the ground floor, front portion of property bearing No. 15/1, Asaf All Road, New Delhi 110002, measuring approximately 1500 sq.ft. (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises).
iii. That a Lease Deed dated 24.05.2006, was signed and executed between Late Mrs. S.K. Aggarwal and the Defendant, duly registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar vide Serial No. 4042 in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 11,999 on pages 175 to 182 on 24.05.2006 for a period of 3 years from 15.05.2006 till 14.05.2009.
iv. That the agreed rent of the demised premises was Rs.30,000/- p.m. plus service tax on the said rent, excluding water and electricity charges. The present rent of the demised premises is Rs. 36,300/- per month, besides Rs. 5,082/- per month as service tax @ 14%, total amounting to Rs. 41,382/-.
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 2/26 v. That as per the lease deed dated 24.05.2006 the tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time on 14.05.2009 and the Defendant is in unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid premises. vi. That the Plaintiffs had sent a letter dated 29.07.2015 to the Defendant to handover vacant possession of the demised premises by the end of August, 2015 besides clearing the arrears of rent. The Defendant in reply sent two letters dated 18.08.2015 wherein they wrongfully averred that the lease was being extended every three years and was liable to be renewed in perpetuity. The Defendant also furnished two cheques of Rs. 74,611/- each, numbered 457193 and 457194 drawn on Andhra Bank, Asaf All Road Branch, New Delhi in favour of the Plaintiffs for clearing the arrears of rent for the months of April to July.
vii. That the tenancy of the Defendant came to an end by efflux of time on 14.05.2009, the Plaintiffs served a Legal Notice dated 12.09.2015 upon the Defendant terminating the tenancy of the Defendant in respect of the demised premises after 15 clear days from the date of receipt of the notice and on the morning of the following day, the Defendant was called upon to hand over the vacant, peaceful, physical possession of the demised premises to the Plaintiffs. The aforesaid legal notice was duly served upon the Defendant on CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 3/26 16.09.2015.
viii. That the Defendant was informed by way of the Legal Notice dated 12.09.2015 that their failure to hand over the vacant peaceful physical possession of the demised premises to the Plaintiffs would make them further liable to pay damages/mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the demised premises Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, which is the present market rate of rent prevalent in the market for similarly situated premises, from the date of termination of their tenancy till the possession of the demised premises is handed over by them to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant was further informed that the Plaintiffs shall be depositing the cheques furnished by the Defendants for clearing the arrears of rent without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Plaintiff. Further the Defendant was informed that any payment remitted by the Defendant after the termination of the tenancy shall be adjusted towards part- payment of the damages/mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the demised premises.
ix. That despite receipt of the aforesaid Legal Demand Notice dated 12.09.2015, the Defendant has failed to hand over the vacant peaceful physical possession of the demised premises to the Plaintiffs after termination of their tenancy and as such they are in unauthorized CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 4/26 occupation of the demised premises. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking following reliefs:
(a) Pass a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant directing the Defendant to hand over to the Plaintiffs the vacant, peaceful, physical possession of the ground floor, front portion of property bearing No. 15/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002, measuring approximately 1500 sq. ft. being the covered area more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the plaint;
(b) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant for Rs 82,764/- (Rupees Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Four only) towards arrears of rent/ damages for use and occupation of the premises from 01.08.2015 till 01.10.2015 @ Rs. 36,300/- plus service tax @ 14% l.e Rs. 5,082/- i.e. Rs. 41,382/- p.m., excluding water and electricity charges per month.
(c) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant for Rs. 1,13,333/- (Rupees One Lac Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three only) towards damages/mesne profit for unauthorized use and occupation of demised premises from 02.10.2015 till 18.10.2015.
(d)Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant for future mesne profits/damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the demised premises by the Defendant @ Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) per month or at such rate as may be determined/fixed by this Hon'ble Court upon holding an enquiry as contemplated under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, w.e.f 02.10.2015 till the date of handing over the vacant, peaceful, physical possession of the demised premises by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs;
(e) Award pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid outstanding amounts in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant from the date of filing of the suit till realization;
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 5/26
(f) Award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant;
(g) Grant any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
2. The defendant has filed his written statement challenging the suit of the plaintiff pleadings inter-alia as follows:-
(a) That the present suit is the gross misuse of the process of law.
(b) That the suit is bad for want of requisite notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, as per lease deed executed between the defendant and the predecessor-in-inerest of the present plaintiffs, a clear notice of two months was required before the landlord could ask for possession from the defendant.
(c) That the plaintiff has concealed that the lessee has a right to get the lease deed renewed.
(d) That the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs would bill the defendant with the increased rent, which would be payable on the extension of the lease and on payment thereof the tenancy would stand extended. It is further stated that the lessee would simply send the increased rent, which wa always accepted by the lessor. It is further stated that when the time of renewal arrived, the then landlady would CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 6/26 send a bill of the increased rent and on payemnt of such a bill, the tenancy stood renewed for a further period of 3 years.
(e) That the present suit is clearly misconceived as the lease stands extended.
(f) That the document purporting to be lease deed between the parties is a fabrication and the words "A lease will be signed after the expiry of 3 years" are an unauthorized interpolation.
On Merits, it is submitted that the lease deed created by virtue of the said lease deed was extendable at the option of the lessee and the other requirement was increased in rent by 10% over the last payable rental. It is denied that initially the agreed rental was Rs 30,000/- p.m and all the rentals were duly paid and the then lessor recognized the extension of the tenancy and the increase in rental. It is also denied that the tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time on 14.05.2009 and that the defendant is in authorized occupation of the premises.
REPLICATION
3. The plaintiffs filed joint replication to the written statement of the defendant by denying each and every allegation raised by the defendant and reiterated the contents of the plaint. It is stated that the defendant have not disputed the tenant landlord relationship, rate of rent and receipt of legal demand notice dt 12.09.2015, terminating the tenancy of the CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 7/26 defendant.
4. An application u/o XII Rule 6 CPC has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein the said application was allowed vide order dt 17.05.2016. While deciding the said application, detailed findings have been given upon the alleged interpolation and it has been held that the interpolation as alleged was one of the condition of the registered lease deed and it has further been held that a fresh lease deed was to be executed after the expiry of every 3 years which has not been done in the present case. Vide the aforesaid order, the contention of the defendant to the effect that Clause VI of the lease deed was orally varied between the predecessor in interest and the defendants too has been negated being barred by the provisions Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has further been held that lease deed dt 24.05.2006 (Ex PW 1/3) came to an end by efflux of time on 14.05.2009 and the tenancy of the defendant was a tenancy on month to month basis which was terminated vide legal notice dt 12.09.2015 (Ex PW 1/5). The aforesaid order dt 22.08.2016 has attained finality.
5. Defendant was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dt 04.11.2016 and issues were framed on that very day. Thereafter, the defendant had appeared and the two witnesses of the plaintiff duly cross examined by the defendant who also led evidence of DW-1 who was also cross-examined CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 8/26 by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff.
ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 04.11.2016, following issues were framed for adjudication:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled arrears of damages/mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ? OPP
3. Relief.
Vide order dt 30.01.2026 upon the court noting the fact that inadvertently at the time of framing out the issues on 04.11.2016, the issue with respect to the arrears of rent was not framed which was a material issue between the parties. With the consent of the parties, an additional issue was framed on 30.01.2026 as follows:
(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent? If so, for which period and at what rate? OPP EVIDENCE
7. The plaintiff examined two witnesses i.e. PW-1 namely Sh Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh Daulat Ram Kashyap as PW-2. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 9/26 S.No Exhibits Documents
1. PW-1/1 GPA dt 28.02.2013 executed by the plaintiffs
2. PW-1/2 Site plan
3. PW-1/3 Lease deed dt 24.05.2006
4. PW-1/4 Letter dt 18.08.2015
5. PW-1 /5 Legal notice dt 12.09.2015
6. PW-1/ 6 Copy of lease deed dt 09.03.2015
8. The PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld counsel for the defendant.
9. Sh Daulat Ram Kashyap UDC from the office of Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi was examined as PW-2. He brought the original lease deed dt 04.03.2015 executed between Laxman Industries Ltd and Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd bearing registered No 1561 in book no 1, Vol 15934 on pages 1-25 on 09.03.2015 which is exhibited as Ex PW 2/1 (OSR).
10. Thereafter, PE was closed on 23.10.2018. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for Defendant evidence.
11. The defendant examined Sh Satinder Kumar Aggarwal as DW-1 who has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence which is exhibited as Ex DW- 1/A.
12. DW-1 was duly cross-examined at length by Ld Counsel for plaintiff and thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. As recorded vide order dt 18.12.2025 the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of defendant has submitted that instead of addressing oral arguments the defendant CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 10/26 would be filing written arguments for which permission was granted to file the same within 7 days from the order dt 18.12.2025 which have not been filed till today i.e. 06.01.2026. Although at the time of reserving orders on 18.12.2025, it was deemed appropriate that the matter be decided on merits duly considering the written arguments as filed by the defendant dt 02.12.2023. However, Ld counsel for the defendant was heard on subsequent dates and the arguments in the present matter was concluded on 22.01.2026.
13. I have heard the arguments from both the partiesand perused the entire record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ISSUE No (a): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent? If so, for which period and at what rate? OPP
14. The parties have jointly submitted that there is no dispute amongst them that the rent for the period 01.08.2015 to 01.10.2015 remained in arrears. It is further submitted that there is also no dispute that the quantum of the said rent was Rs 36,300/- + 5,082/- towards service tax. Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties that the quantum of rent for the 2 months period stands at Rs 82,764/- and the said rent remained in arrears. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 11/26 ISSUE no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled arrears of damages/mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
15. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has argued on the lines of the plaint and has submitted that the plaintiff has duly proved on record the mense profits by placing on record Ex PW 1/6. It is further submitted that the property to which Ex PW 1/6 pertains is also situated in the same vicinity where the suit property is situated i.e. Asif Ali Road, New Delhi. It is further submitted that Ex PW 1/6 pertains to the same period for which the mense profit are required to be determined. It is further submitted that the rate at which the property covered by Es PW 1/6 i.e. @ 75 per sq feet is the most appropriate guide to determine mense profits.
16. Per contra, It has been argued by Ld counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has not entered into the witness box and instead has relied upon the testimony of Sh Vinod Kumar Sharma being the General Attorney of the plaintiff. It has further been contended that the rate of rent as mentioned in Ex PW 1/6 is merely a self serving statement since Ex PW 1/6 as per the cross-examination of PW-1 is admitted to have been drafted by PW-1. It is thus contended that the plaintiff through the evidence of PW-1 has failed to prove on record Ex PW 1/6. It is thus contended that in accordance with the judgment CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 12/26 rendered in the case of Sarvinder Singh & Anr Vs Vipul Tandon in CS (OS) 2453/2015 & I.A 16871/2015 in the present case in the absence of any evidence either oral or documentary the suit is liable to be dismissed since the court is not in a position to calculate its mense profits. It has further been contended that in accordance with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the matter of Union of India Vs Banwari Lal (2004) 5 SCC 304, since it cannot be said that the possession of the appellant was not illegal or wrongful hence only the plaintiff is entitled to a fair rent and is not entitled to claim mense profits. It has further been contended that in accordance with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the matter of Shri Om Prakash Chopra & Anr Vs State Bank of India 2019:DHC:246, the mense profits be determined by taking into account the enhancement of the last paid rent @ 15% per year.
17. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has rebutted all the arguments as raised by Ld counsel for the defendant. It is contended that the testimony of PW-1 cannot be brushed aside since he is a duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff and has deposed on the basis of his personal knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has further been contended that the plaintiff has successfully proved on record Ex PW 1/6 not only through PW-1 but also through PW-2 CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 13/26 who was a summoned witness and had duly proved on record the original lease deed executed between Laxman Industries and Reliance cooperate IT Park Ltd. It is thus submitted that the execution of Ex PW 1/6 has duly been proved. It is further submitted that the judgment rendered in the matter of Sarvinder Singh (Supra) has no bearing upon the facts and circumstances of the case since in the said case the plaintiff has not led any evidence with respect to the rent of similar premises within the locality and accordingly it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in the absence of any evidence the mense profits cannot be calculated on its own by the court.
18. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has further contended that even the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India Vs Banwari Lal (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since it was not the case of tenancy and was infact a case rendered in peculiar set of facts where requisitioning and acquisition of the immovable property had taken place under the Land Acquisition Act and under the circumstances it was deemed appropriate that a fair rent be granted.
19. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has further contended that even the judgment rendered in the case of Shri Om Prakash Chopra & Anr (Supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 14/26 case wherein the court was confronted with the comparative assessment of the lease deeds produced by the parties and in view of the clear conflicting evidence produced by the parties it was deemed appropriate to grant mense profits by enhancing the rate by 15 % per year.
20. The court is in respectful agreement with the submissions made by the counsel for the Plaintiff. All the arguments as raised by the defendant merits outright dismissal. PW-1 although the GPA holder of the plaintiff has duly proved the aforesaid GPA which has been executed in his favour by the plaintiff. PW-1 in his evidence has clearly stated that he has personal knowledge about the facts of the present case and infact was also a witness to Ex PW1/3. Thus it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that PW-1 lacked any capacity to depose on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus the testimony of PW-1 is admissible in the eyes of law. Even the contention of the Ld counsel for the defendant as stated above stands duly rebutted by Ld counsel for the plaintiff and the court is in complete agreement with the rebuttal arguments as advanced by Ld counsel for the plaintiff. In the present matter there is clear evidence on record in the form of Ex PW 1/6 and neither there is any reason nor evidence of whatsoever CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 15/26 nature rebutting the evidence as led by the plaintiff on the question of the determination of the mense profits.
21. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 2(12) of the CPC, which defines mesne profits and also to Order XX Rule 12 CPC, which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Court while dealing with a claim for grant of mesne profits. These aforesaid provisions read as under:-
"Section 2(12) "mesne profits" of property 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;"
"Order XX Rule 12:-Decree for possession and mesne profits.- (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree-
(a) for the possession of the property;
(b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent; (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to mesne profits;
(c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until
--
(i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder,
(ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree- holder through the Court, or
(iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs.
(2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry."
22. Mesne profits, which a landlord is entitled to receive from a tenant who is continuously in the occupation of the lease property despite the termination of the lease, has been laid down to mean the rate of rent CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 16/26 which would otherwise, accrue on a suit premises during the period of its illegal occupation by a tenant. However, the burden which the Courts are often tasked with is to determine the appropriate amount payable to the landlord towards such mesne profits. This process of determination of mesne profits begins with the landlord discharging the onus placed upon him to prove his claim for mesne profits, in accordance with the law. Thereafter, it is for the Court to ascertain the appropriate mesne profits to be awarded to the claimant by adhering to the parameters as set out in Order XX Rule 12 CPC which prescribes that while passing the decree for possession, the Court may either straightaway pass a decree for mesne profits or direct that an inquiry be conducted for assessing the rate of mesne profits payable. If the Court finds that it is sufficient and authentic evidence available on record for determination of the landlord's claim for mesne profits, the Court may, in its discretion, award the same by relying on such evidence. In the alternative, in situations when the Court finds that the evidence brought on record is not sufficient for such determination, the court may direct that an inquiry be conducted thereto, in accordance with the provisions of the CPC and/or take judicial notice under Section 114 and 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
23. The calculation of mesne profits always involves some guesswork and the Courts in several cases, taken judicial notice of the prevalent market CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 17/26 rents of different areas within the city while awarding mesne profits. Rents may vary based on location of properties, nature of construction, a period of construction, purpose/user for which the premises are let, variation between demand for tenanted premises and availability of premises and even factors relating to the position of the economy. In this regard, reference may be made to judgment of Suman Verma & Ors Vs. Sushil Mohini Gupta & Ors, 2014 (10) DRJ 595 wherein it was held as under:-
"(a) though undoubtedly the Division Bench of this Court in National Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. supra has held that judicial notice, only of a general increase in rent in the city of Delhi and not of the rates of rent, in the absence of proof thereof can be taken but it cannot be lost sight of that the Courts are for doing justice between the parties and not for, on hyper technicalities, allowing the parties to suffer injustice.
b) the property of the respondents/plaintiffs which the appellants/defendants are admittedly in unauthorized occupation of, is situated in one of the poshest colonies of the city of Delhi, properties wherein fetch high rentals and which only the elite, affluent, expats and foreigners are able to afford.
(c) the said property is an independent bungalow constructed over 400 sq. yd. of land and comprising of two and a half floors.
(d) the calculation of mesne profits always involves some amount of guess work, as held by this court in International Pvt Ltd Vs Saraswati Industrial Sundictes Ltd (1992) 2 RCR 6. M.R. Sahni Vs Doris Randhawa and reiterated in Consep India Pvt. Ltd. supra and applicability of prevalent rents in the city and of which the Judges manning the Courts and who are born and brought up in the same city, are generally aware of.
e) The Division Benches of this court in Vinod Khanna Vs. Bakshi Sachdev AIR 1996 Delhi 32 and S.Kumar Vs. G.K. Kathpalia 1991 (1) RCR 431, taking judicial notice, refused to interfere with the rate of mesne profits even where the landlord had not led any documentary evidence. Notice of such increase has also been taken by the Supreme Court in Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S. Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC
18."
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 18/26
24. In the case of M. C. Agrawal v. Sahara India and Ors., 183 (2011) DLT 105, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that in absence of any evidence led by the landlord in respect of rent prevalent in the area even then judicial notice of increase of rent in urban areas can be taken by applying Sections 114 and 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In the aforesaid case an increase of 15% every year was awarded to the landlord for illegal occupation. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as:
"8. 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 been led by the landlord with respect to the rents prevalent in the area. If there is no registered lease deed for a fixed period of three years, then, the tenant continues to stay in the premises, not because of any relationship of landlord and tenant pursuant to a lease of three years but only as an unauthorized occupant after the expiry of lease period by efflux of time. I therefore do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the tenants and I hold that since in this case tenancy expired by efflux of time on 30.11.2000 and the suit was filed on 3.4.2001, clearly, the tenant would become liable to pay mesne profits from 1.12.2000. Though it has not been argued on behalf of the landlord, I would like to give benefit to landlord of 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 Sections 114 and 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In my opinion, considering that the premises are situated in one of the most centrally located commercial localities of Delhi, situated in Connaught Place, an increase of 15% every year should be awarded (and nothing has otherwise been shown to me for the increase to be lesser) during the period for which the tenants have over stayed in the tenanted premises. Putting it differently, for the first year of illegal occupation, the tenant will pay 15% increased rent over the contractual rent. For the second year of illegal occupation, 15% increase will be over the original contractual rent plus the additional 15%. It will be accordingly for all subsequent years of the illegal occupation till the premises were vacated on CS DJ/9153/2016 M/s. TEE-EM (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Page 28 3.4.2005. I rely upon and refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S. Kumar v. G.R. Kathpalia CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 19/26 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 rate of rent."
25. In the case of National Radio and Electronic Co. v. Motion Pictures Associations, 122 (2005) DLT 629(DB) the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:-
"31. We find that this Court has in several cases taken judicial notice of the factum of increase of rent and made awards of mesne profits and damages. Noteworthy in this behalf is a judicial pronouncement of the Division Bench reported at (supra) entitled Vinod Kumar v. Bakshi Sachdev.........
21........It is true that no substantial evidence has been led by the plaintiff in respect of the increase of rent in the properties like that of the suit property. However, it is a well known fact that the amount of rent for various properties in and around Delhi has been rising staggeringly and we cannot see why such judicial notice could not be taken of the fact about such increase of rents in the premises in and around Delhi which is a city of growing importance being the capital of the country which is a matter of public history. At this stage we may appropriately refer to the Court making judicial notice of the increase of price of land rapidly in the urban areas in connection with the land acquisition matters. Even the Apex Court has taken judicial notice of the fact of universal escalation of rent and even raised rent of disputed premises by taking such judicial notice in case of D.C. Oswal v. V.K. Subbiah.
26. In that view of the matter we have no hesitation in our mind in holding that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality in taking judicial notice of the fact of increase of rents and determining the compensation in respect of the suit premises.......
27. The question as to whether the plaintiff can be awarded future mesne profits at a rate higher than what has been claimed in the plaint has been CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 20/26 dealt with in various decisions. In the case of Santosh Arora v. M. L. Arora, 2011 (2014) DLT 312 where the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the rate of mesne profits, is to be determined by evidence and is not a matter of contract. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"25. The Supreme Court in Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. Meenakshi Ayal AIR 1967 SC 155 has held:-
"With regard to future mesne profits, the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit, and it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action or to value it or to pay court-fees thereon at the time of the institution of the suit.."
It is for this reason only that payment of Court Fees of future mesne profits decreed is a condition to the execution thereof and is not to be paid at the time of institution of the suit. At the time of institution of the suit and which often remain pending for long, it is not possible for the plaintiff to state as to what benefits the defendant in wrongful possession of the property would receive from time to time.
27.In our opinion the plaintiff in such a situation would be entitled to such higher rate since he was not obliged to make a claim for future mesne profits, not obliged to pay Court Fees thereon and could not have in any case known to future mesne profits at what rate he would be entitled to as observed by the Supreme Court in Gopalakrishna Pillai supra. Once it is held to be the duty of the Court under Order 20 Rule 12 to award future mesne profits even without a specific prayer in this regard, the specific prayer even if made by the plaintiff cannot limit the entitlement of the plaintiff to future mesne profits.
29. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Gauri Prosad Koondoo Vs. Reily ILR 9 Cal 112, High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 21/26 Magunta Kota Reddy Vs. Pothula Chendrasekhara Reddy AIR 1963 AP 42 and the High Court of the Rajasthan in Prithvi Singh Vs. Pahap Singh MANU/RH/0369/2006 have also held that a plaintiff is not estopped from claiming a larger sum as mesne profits than what was claimed in the plaint."
28. Now, in the wake of the settled legal prepositions the quantum of mesne profits have to be determined. The plaintiff in its evidence (PW-1) described the suit property as situated to be at ground floor, front portion at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. The area of the demised property is deposed to be approximately 1500 sq. feet. PW-1 was not cross examined by the defendant on the condition and description of the suit property. The defendant's witness (DW-1) in his cross-examination has not denied that the suit property is not situated at ground floor, front portion at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi or is of a lesser area than as mentioned in the Lease Deed.
29. Thus, it can be said that there is no dispute on the size or location of the suit property which is approximately 1500 sq. feet. The Plaintiff has exhibited and proved the lease-deed (Ex PW 1/6) in support of their case to show the rate of rent of the properties situated adjacent/near to the suit property at the relevant point of time. As per Ex PW 1/6 the property is also situated at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. This is a registered lease-deed. The rate of rent for a period of three years is Rs 3,45,000/- and the rent for the ground floor portion of the said property is at the rate of Rs 75 per sq ft. CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 22/26 which is to be increased at the rate of 15% after every 3 years. The said lease-deed as deposed by PW-1, is with respect to a property in the exact same location/area, as that of the suit property.
30. PW-1 has not been cross-examined by the defendant on the description, rent or any particulars of the above said property/lease deed (Ex. PW1/6). Even no suggestions have been put to the effect that the property in respect of which the lease deed has been executed is not similar to the property under the occupation of the Defendant. There is also no cross- examination of PW-2 who brought the lease-deed (Ex. PW1/6).
31. The defendant has not produced any lease-deed in respect of any property situated in the vicinity of the suit property and neither any evidence has been produced with respect to the rent being fetched from similar properties during the relevant time. DW-1 in his cross-examination without leading any evidence has simply denied the knowledge as to whether the similar property in the vicinity are fetching a rent of Rs 2 lakhs.
32. From the aforesaid lease-deed produced by the plaintiff, it is thus clear that the said lease deed is with respect to the property in the vicinity of the suit property and the per sq feet rent with respect to the ground floor is clearly mentioned in the said lease deed (Ex PW 1/6) which has duly been proved on record by the Plaintiff. No evidence of whatsoever nature CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 23/26 has been produced by the Defendant to dispute the quantum of per sq feet rent being fetched by the property as described in Ex PW1/6 and neither PW1 nor PW-2 have been cross examined to dispute that the property as described in Ex PW1/6 is not similar to the suit property or is not fetching the amount of rent described therein. Thus in the considered opinion of the court the property as mentioned in the lease- deed i.e Ex PW 1/6 is similar to the suit property in terms of location, built up area, and amenities etc. Moreover the lease deed Ex PW 1/6 is also the period of which the mesne profits are to determined. Thus since in the present case tenancy was terminated by legal notice dated 12.09.2015 (Ex.PW1/5) with effect from 01.10.2015 clearly, the tenant/defendant is liable to pay mesne profits w.e.f. 02.10.2015 till the date of handing over of the possession i.e. 25.10.2016. Keeping in view the evidence as led by the plaintiff upon the aspect of the mesne profits which has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, I am of the view that plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for use and occupation/mesne profits from the defendant in respect of the suit property @ Rs 75 per sq ft per month w.e.f. 02.10.2015 to 25.10.2016 to the date of handing over the possession i.e. 25.10.2016. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 24/26 ISSUE No 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ? OPP
33. It is settled proposition of law that interest forms an integral part of the mesne profits and, therefore, once the Court awards mesne profits, the interest accruing thereon has to be allowed in the computation of the mesne profits itself. The mesne profits which in fact ought to have been paid years ago, should bear interest.
34. In case of Consep India Pvt Ltd v. CEPCO Industries Pvt Ltd, (2010) ILR 3 Del 766 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after examining the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. I.S. Ratta and Ors., 120 (2005) DLT 407 observed that interest is an integral part of the mesne profits and, therefore, the same has to be allowed in the computation of mesne profits itself.
35. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of the accrual of the per month mesne profits till the date of the decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to the payment on the sums that are awarded towards arrears of rent and for damages and occupation/mesne profits. RELIEF :
36. In view of my findings on issues nos 1 to 3 as well as (a), the suit of CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 25/26 the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs 82,764/- payable by the defendant towards arrears of rent. The plaintiff is also entitled to mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of the suit property @ Rs 75/- per sq feet per month. Given the fact that admittedly the suit property was approximately 1500 sq feet, the monthly mense profit/damages towards use and occupation charges come to Rs 1,12,500/- which is payable by the defendant w.e.f 02.10.2015 to 25.10.2016. The plaintiff is also granted simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of the accrual of the per month mesne profits to the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of the payment.
37. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared only after payment of the deficient court fees.
38. File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities.
Announced in the Open Court (SACHIN
SACHIN SOOD)
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SOOD
on 30.01.2026. DJ-01/SOOD
Central District,
Date: 2026.01.30
16:55:08 +0530
Tis Hazari Court/Delhi.
CS No. 613550/2016 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors v. Rajan Electrical Pvt Ltd Page no. 26/26