Fair Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. Seema Grover

Valmiki J Mehta, J.

C.M. No. 6258/2011 (condonation of delay) in RFA No. 186/2011

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

+ RFA No. 186/2011

The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010 whereby the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff/landlady has been decreed for possession and mesne profits with respect to the tenanted premises being Shop No. 3, Ground floor, Aggarwal Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

It is not disputed that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the monthly rent was Rs. 37,500/-. Since the rent is more than Rs. 3500/- the premises does not have protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The lease which was granted through a registered deed dated 5.8.2008 was for a period of two years and which tenancy came to an end with the efflux of time on the expiry of two years. In such circumstances, the Respondent/landlady was not even required to send a notice terminating tenancy, however, ex abundant cautela, a notice dated 14.5.2010 was served upon the Appellant asking the Appellant to vacate the premises.

In view of the above, I find that there were no disputed questions of facts, either with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the rent being more than Rs. 3,500/- and the tenancy having come to an end by efflux of time whereby the Appellant was bound to vacate the tenanted premises. The decree for possession was thus rightly passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC .

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the trial Court has committed an error in awarding mesne profits @ 10% over the agreed rate of rent because the Respondent/landlady herself made a statement on 22.11.2010 restricting the claim to the agreed rate of rent. A first reading of the statement of the landlady recorded on 22.11.2010 seems to suggest so, however, when we read the entire statement, it becomes clear that the Respondent also had prayed that necessary damages be awarded which is in the discretion, of the Court. It is, therefore, using this judicial discretion that the trial Court has awarded damages @ 10% more than the agreed rate of rent. The agreed rate of rent was of the year 2008 and the trial Court was therefore fully justified in taking judicial notice of the increase in the rent and awarding 10% more than the agreed rent from July, 2010. A Division Bench of this Court in its decision reported as S. Kumar v. G.R. Kathpalia 1999 RLR 114 has held that the Courts can take judicial notice of increase of rent. The trial Court was therefore justified in passing the decree for mesne profits @ 10% higher than the agreed rate of rent.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the decree for mesne profits has been passed although the Respondent has not paid the Court fee and nor any direction has been issued with respect to payment of Court fee. To the extent that the Respondent/landlady will be liable to pay additional Court fee for the pendente lite mesne profits, cannot be doubted and it is therefore clarified that the trial Court will draw up a decree for pendente lite mesne profits and till recovery of possession only on the Respondent/landlady paying the Court fee for the mesne profits awarded.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Caveat No. 267/2011 in RFA No. 186/2011

No one appears for the caveat or. Since the appeal has been dismissed, the caveat stands discharged.

C.M. No. 6257/2011 (stay) in RFA No. 186/2011

Since the main appeal is dismissed, no orders are required to be passed in this application which is disposed of as such.