Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)National Radio And Electronic Co. Ltd. vs Motion Pictures Association on 31 May, 2005
8. While the counsel for the appellants/defendants has relied on M.C.
Agrawal HUF Vs. Sahara India 183 (2011) DLT 105 awarding mesne
profits at a rate increased by 15% over the last paid rent and on National
Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005)
RFA No.228/2013 Page 8 of 16
DLT 629 (DB) laying down that no judicial notice of the prevalent rates of
rent can be taken, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has relied on State
of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2001 SC 2532, Banamali Das Vs.
Rajendra Chandra AIR 1975 SC 1863, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Devilal AIR 1991 Rajasthan 29 and Smt. Rekha Rana Vs.
Smt. Ratnashree Jain AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 107 to contend that the
certified copies of the Lease Deeds tendered in evidence by the witness from
the office of the Sub-Registrar were admissible in evidence.
State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 25 July, 2001
8. While the counsel for the appellants/defendants has relied on M.C.
Agrawal HUF Vs. Sahara India 183 (2011) DLT 105 awarding mesne
profits at a rate increased by 15% over the last paid rent and on National
Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005)
RFA No.228/2013 Page 8 of 16
DLT 629 (DB) laying down that no judicial notice of the prevalent rates of
rent can be taken, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has relied on State
of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2001 SC 2532, Banamali Das Vs.
Rajendra Chandra AIR 1975 SC 1863, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Devilal AIR 1991 Rajasthan 29 and Smt. Rekha Rana Vs.
Smt. Ratnashree Jain AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 107 to contend that the
certified copies of the Lease Deeds tendered in evidence by the witness from
the office of the Sub-Registrar were admissible in evidence.
Banamali Das vs Rajendra Chandra Mardaraj Harichandan ... on 1 August, 1975
8. While the counsel for the appellants/defendants has relied on M.C.
Agrawal HUF Vs. Sahara India 183 (2011) DLT 105 awarding mesne
profits at a rate increased by 15% over the last paid rent and on National
Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005)
RFA No.228/2013 Page 8 of 16
DLT 629 (DB) laying down that no judicial notice of the prevalent rates of
rent can be taken, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has relied on State
of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2001 SC 2532, Banamali Das Vs.
Rajendra Chandra AIR 1975 SC 1863, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Devilal AIR 1991 Rajasthan 29 and Smt. Rekha Rana Vs.
Smt. Ratnashree Jain AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 107 to contend that the
certified copies of the Lease Deeds tendered in evidence by the witness from
the office of the Sub-Registrar were admissible in evidence.
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Devilal And Ors. on 18 September, 1989
8. While the counsel for the appellants/defendants has relied on M.C.
Agrawal HUF Vs. Sahara India 183 (2011) DLT 105 awarding mesne
profits at a rate increased by 15% over the last paid rent and on National
Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005)
RFA No.228/2013 Page 8 of 16
DLT 629 (DB) laying down that no judicial notice of the prevalent rates of
rent can be taken, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has relied on State
of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2001 SC 2532, Banamali Das Vs.
Rajendra Chandra AIR 1975 SC 1863, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Devilal AIR 1991 Rajasthan 29 and Smt. Rekha Rana Vs.
Smt. Ratnashree Jain AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 107 to contend that the
certified copies of the Lease Deeds tendered in evidence by the witness from
the office of the Sub-Registrar were admissible in evidence.
Smt. Rekha Rana And Ors. vs Smt. Ratnashree Jain on 17 August, 2005
8. While the counsel for the appellants/defendants has relied on M.C.
Agrawal HUF Vs. Sahara India 183 (2011) DLT 105 awarding mesne
profits at a rate increased by 15% over the last paid rent and on National
Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005)
RFA No.228/2013 Page 8 of 16
DLT 629 (DB) laying down that no judicial notice of the prevalent rates of
rent can be taken, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has relied on State
of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2001 SC 2532, Banamali Das Vs.
Rajendra Chandra AIR 1975 SC 1863, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Devilal AIR 1991 Rajasthan 29 and Smt. Rekha Rana Vs.
Smt. Ratnashree Jain AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 107 to contend that the
certified copies of the Lease Deeds tendered in evidence by the witness from
the office of the Sub-Registrar were admissible in evidence.
Fateh Chand vs Balkishan Das on 15 January, 1963
12. Though the learned ADJ has not considered the matter from the said
perspective and has held the respondent/plaintiff disentitled to mesne profits
@ Rs. 5000 per day for the reason of the same being much in excess of
prevalent rates of rent but I am of the view that if a tenant agrees to pay rent
for the period after the expiry of the term of the lease, even if at an
astronomical rate, it is bound thereby. There is no bar to a prospective tenant
agreeing to pay rent at rates which may be far above the rates prevalent in
the market and if it does so, it is bound by the said Agreement. Of course,
Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that agreement for
payment of amount to be paid in case of breach or by way of penalty entitles
the party not in breach to recover reasonable compensation not exceeding the
RFA No.228/2013 Page 10 of 16
amount so named and the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand Vs. Balkishan
Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405 and the Division Bench of this Court in Vishal
Engineers & Builders Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
MANU/DE/6829/2011 have held that no amount becomes recoverable under
such clauses without showing any loss but not only has the
respondent/plaintiff shown loss on account of breach of the Lease Deed by
the appellants/defendants but the appellants/defendants themselves have
admitted so. The argument as aforesaid of the appellants/defendants also is,
that they were paying rent to the respondent/plaintiff @ Rs.30/- per sq. ft. per
month; that the learned ADJ has wrongly awarded mesne profits/damages
for use and occupation @ Rs.92/- per sq. ft. per month, when the prevalent
rate of rent was Rs.60/- per sq. ft. per month at which rate the
appellants/defendants have taken alternate premises on rent. From the same,
loss having been suffered by the respondent/plaintiff on account of the
appellants/defendants overstaying in the flat in breach of the terms of the
Lease Deed, is evident. Once, the loss is evident and is established, I fail to
see as to why the appellants/defendants should be released from their
agreement contained in the registered Lease Deed. Though, in the light of
this matter, the respondent/plaintiff would have been entitled to mesne
RFA No.228/2013 Page 11 of 16
profits/damages for use and occupation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month but
neither has the learned ADJ awarded mesne profits/damages for use and
occupation at the said rate nor has the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
challenged the judgment and decree or argued so. The rate at which the
mesne profits/damages has been awarded to the respondent/plaintiff is on the
lower side.
Vishal Engineers & Builders vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 30 October, 2011
12. Though the learned ADJ has not considered the matter from the said
perspective and has held the respondent/plaintiff disentitled to mesne profits
@ Rs. 5000 per day for the reason of the same being much in excess of
prevalent rates of rent but I am of the view that if a tenant agrees to pay rent
for the period after the expiry of the term of the lease, even if at an
astronomical rate, it is bound thereby. There is no bar to a prospective tenant
agreeing to pay rent at rates which may be far above the rates prevalent in
the market and if it does so, it is bound by the said Agreement. Of course,
Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that agreement for
payment of amount to be paid in case of breach or by way of penalty entitles
the party not in breach to recover reasonable compensation not exceeding the
RFA No.228/2013 Page 10 of 16
amount so named and the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand Vs. Balkishan
Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405 and the Division Bench of this Court in Vishal
Engineers & Builders Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
MANU/DE/6829/2011 have held that no amount becomes recoverable under
such clauses without showing any loss but not only has the
respondent/plaintiff shown loss on account of breach of the Lease Deed by
the appellants/defendants but the appellants/defendants themselves have
admitted so. The argument as aforesaid of the appellants/defendants also is,
that they were paying rent to the respondent/plaintiff @ Rs.30/- per sq. ft. per
month; that the learned ADJ has wrongly awarded mesne profits/damages
for use and occupation @ Rs.92/- per sq. ft. per month, when the prevalent
rate of rent was Rs.60/- per sq. ft. per month at which rate the
appellants/defendants have taken alternate premises on rent. From the same,
loss having been suffered by the respondent/plaintiff on account of the
appellants/defendants overstaying in the flat in breach of the terms of the
Lease Deed, is evident. Once, the loss is evident and is established, I fail to
see as to why the appellants/defendants should be released from their
agreement contained in the registered Lease Deed. Though, in the light of
this matter, the respondent/plaintiff would have been entitled to mesne
RFA No.228/2013 Page 11 of 16
profits/damages for use and occupation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month but
neither has the learned ADJ awarded mesne profits/damages for use and
occupation at the said rate nor has the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
challenged the judgment and decree or argued so. The rate at which the
mesne profits/damages has been awarded to the respondent/plaintiff is on the
lower side.
Smt. Dayamathi Bai vs Sri K.M. Shaffi on 4 August, 2004
16. As far as the proof of the Lease Deeds is concerned, I am in agreement
with the contention of the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the
appellants/defendants having allowed the said Lease Deeds to be admitted
into evidence without any objection whatsoever cannot now be heard to urge
that the same have not been proved. Had the appellants/defendants taken
any objection at the relevant time, the respondent/plaintiff could have even
in the absence of inclusion in the list of witnesses examined the parties to the
said Lease Deeds to prove the same. The Supreme Court in Dayamathi Bai
Vs. K.M. Shaffi (2004) 7 SCC 107 has held that objections to admissibility
of evidence can either be on the ground that the document sought to be
proved is inadmissible in evidence or on the ground of the document though
RFA No.228/2013 Page 14 of 16
admissible in evidence, of mode of proof. It was further held that where the
objection is of the first kind, mere marking of the document as exhibit does
not exclude objection to its admissibility at a later stage or even in appeal but
where the objection is of the second variety, objection should be taken when
the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in
evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been
admitted in evidence or that the mode of proving the document is irregular,
cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the
document as an exhibit.
M/S. Consep India Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Cepco Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 26 March, 2010
18. The argument of the counsel for the appellants/defendants that no
enquiry was ordered, is misconceived as an issue was framed as to the rate of
mesne profits/damages and the parties went to trial thereon. This Court in
Consep India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CEPCO Industries Pvt. Ltd.
MANU/DE/0700/2010 has held that the Court while passing decree for
possession has the discretion to, either, if sufficient evidence is available on
record for the determination of mesne profts, to also pass a decree for mesne
profits, or if the evidence brought on record is not sufficient for such
RFA No.228/2013 Page 15 of 16
determination, to direct an inquiry as to such mesne profits.