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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more