Skip to main content

Honest guess work will always be required for calculating the mesne profits

In The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devansh Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., High Court of Delhi,  the Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed by the Appellant/tenant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugning the judgment of the trial Court whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the Respondent/plaintiff/landlord for mesne profits. On account of a decree passed earlier being passed under Appellant/Defendant, the Appellant/Defendant vacated the suit premises on 25th March, 2014. However, the mesne profits have been granted by the trial Court not later till 25th March, 2014 but earlier only till 31st December, 2013 as there was an offer made by the Appellant/Defendant to vacate the suit premises by 31st December, 2013, but the Respondent/Plaintiff did not take possession of the suit premises and ultimately took possession only in Court on 25th March, 2014 pursuant to an application filed by the Appellant/Defendant for handing over possession. 

The limited issue in present appeal is as to what should be the rate of mesne profits which should be payable by the Appellant/defendant for the suit premises for the period from 1st February, 2011 to 25th March, 2014. 

The Delhi High Court held that the trial court has very extensively dealt with the issue with respect to rate of mesne profits payable by referring to the lease deeds filed by both the parties for arriving at a conclusion for payment of mesne profits at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. per month. In terms of the documentary evidence led by both the parties it is seen that the rate of rent from the year 2003 till the year 2008 with respect to the same area viz Asaf Ali Road, varied between Rs. 22.50/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 260/- per sq. ft. 

No doubt, rate of rent varies as per location of a property as also the condition of the property, however in the facts of the present case, this aspect has been duly considered by the trial Court because the trial Court has granted rent at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. for the period from 01st February, 2011 till 31st December, 2013. As held by present Court on repeated occasions, some amount of honest guess work will always be required for calculating the mesne profits, and that once there is some factual basis especially documentary evidence to make an honest guess work, then the finding of the trial Court cannot be held to be perverse or in any manner illegal for this Court to interfere with the same in a first appeal. 

There is no illegality in impugned judgment.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more