State Bank of India vs Pushpa Singh

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—One building having different Municipal numbers, for the reason in Old Delhi, when survey was carried out Municipal numbers were assigned with reference to the doors in a building, explains four suits filed by the father and his three sons who owned different portions of a building on Chandni Chowk, Delhi, against the appellant seeking ejectment and damages by way of mesne profits for continued unauthorized occupation, alleging that the ground floor, first and second floor (part mezzanine also) was let out by them (different portions) to the appellant bank who did not vacate the premises when tenancy was determined but vacated after a year and few months. The building abuts Chandni Chowk on one side and has an opening on a street which forms a T-junction with Chandni Chowk i.e. is a corner plot and the portion occupied by the bank under four tenancies opens into the side street having the entrance 30 feet away from main Chandni Chowk.

The tenancies were determined; by the father vide notice dated 08.12.1997 and the sons vide notice(s) dated October 07, 1997. But, the bank did not vacate the premises when the tenancy(s) was determined and did so only on September 02, 1999.

The father and the sons filed four suits seeking damages which were opposed on the strength of the plea that the premises being in a slum area, notwithstanding rent being more than Rs. 3,500/- per month and notwithstanding tenancy being determined, the landlords could not claim any damages. The suit was dismissed on May 05, 2011 and vide decision dated December 12, 2011 the decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench requiring the Single Judge to determine the mesne profits, against which appellant filed petitions seeking Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court which were dismissed on May 07, 2012.

Vide impugned decree dated September 11, 2012, the learned Single Judge has computed the mesne profits in sum of Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. per month for the ground floor, Rs. 45/- per sq. ft. per month for the first floor and the second floor and Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. per month for the mezzanine floor.

With reference to various lease deeds proved by the father and sons i.e. the respondents, the learned Single Judge has tabulated as under:-

With reference to the two lease deeds proved by the appellant, the learned Single Judge has tabulated as under:-

Questioning the comparison with the lease deeds proved by the respondents it was urged before the learned Single Judge that the premises covered under the lease deeds in question were on the main Chandni Chowk and that the portion of the building in occupation of the appellant abutted a side street. It was secondly urged that said premises were renovated and the one in question was not renovated and was leaking. Highlighting that the tenancies proved by the appellant were a good measure, grievance raised in the appeals is that the learned Single Judge has ignored the pleas.

Now, the learned Single Judge has ignored nothing. With respect to the leases relied upon by the appellant the learned Single Judge has noted that the subject properties were let out much prior to the dates of the leases and during litigation the landlords had agreed to receive the rents and enter into fresh lease deeds, wherefrom the learned Single Judge has correctly opined that in said backdrop of the facts it could not be said that the rents reflected therein were between a willing landlord and a willing tenant.

Noting that the portion of the subject property let out to the appellant was opening on to a street, the learned Single Judge has highlighted that the building abutted Chandni Chowk as well, and from the fact that the entrance to the bank was merely 30 feet from Chandni Chowk, would make not much difference while comparing the rents. As regards the said tenancies i.e. the ones relied upon by the landlords pertain to buildings which were renovated, the learned Single Judge has not expressly recorded the effect thereof, but as we would be noticing herein after in the next succeeding paragraph, the learned Single Judge has factored in the same.

We agree with each reasoning of the learned Single Judge and would simply highlight that the tenancies proved by the father and sons would show that ground floor rents in the year 1997 and 1998 ranged between Rs. 69/- to Rs. 75/- per sq. ft. per month and those of the first floor and second floor between Rs. 50/- to Rs. 55/- per sq. ft. per month for buildings in Chandni Chowk.

The learned Single Judge, for the period 5.9.1997 to 2.9.1999, has determined Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. per month for the ground floor and Rs. 45/- per sq. ft. per month for the first floor and above and thus we find that the existing building not being renovated and others were possibly renovated has been factored in by the learned Single Judge as also that the entrance to the portion of the building with the bank opened on to the side street at a point 30 feet away from Chandni Chowk.

The learned Single Judge has rightly noted that exactness in comparison of buildings with reference to rents can never be achieved by any Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.

CM No. 19658/2012 in RFA (OS) No. 117/2012; CM No. 19733/2012 in RFA (OS) No. 119/2012; CM No. 19747/2012 in RFA (OS) No. 121/2012; and CM No. 19757/2012 in RFA (OS) No. 122/2012

Since the appeals stand disposed of, instant applications seeking stay of the impugned order stand disposed of as infructuous.