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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more