MERCURY TRAVELS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents herein had filed suit for ejectment and for recovery of money and mesne profits against appellant herein. By impugned judgment dated 31/08/1998 learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit for recovery of possession of premises known as 2-A, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi also known as A-16, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi on a plot of land measuring 1800 sq. yds. with double storey building with cost. Decree for recovery of Rs. 24,000.00- and Rs. 5,734.00 is also passed in favour of the respondents herein. Mesne profits are awarded at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 p.m. from 26/05/1992 onwards till handing over the possession of the suit property. The decree also injuncts the appellant, its servant, agent and relative from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the suit property mentioned in the plaint. Direction is also given to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the respondents within two months from the date of judgment. Appellant is aggrieved against the said judgment and decree and has filed R.F.A. 630/98 against the same. Even respondents herein are not fully satisfied with this decree and they vent their grievance insofar as rate at which mesne profits are decreed. According to their estimation it is too inadequate. Therefore, they have also filed R.F.A. 684/98 in which prayer is made that the mesne profits be awarded to them at the rate of Rs. 80,000.00 p.m. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common-judgment.

(2.) Facts, as they emerge from the pleadings and evidence of both the paries led before the Trial Court, may be stated before embarking upon the legal issues raised.

(3.) Father of respondent No. 1 namely, late Shri Krishna Prasada was the owner of the suit property. The appellant herein approached him in the year 1978 for leasing out me suit property for a period of 10 years. After discussions the suit property was leased out to the appellant for a period of 9 years and 360 days commencing from 1/08/1978. It is the case of the respondents herein that appellant requested the father of respondent No. 1 that appellant was advised by his Income-tax Consultant to prepare two lease deeds in respect of the suit property instead of a single lease deed and therefore, father of the respondent No. 1 was requested by appellant to execute two lease deeds. Rent of the entire premises was agreed to be Rs. 6,000.00 p.m. Accordingly, the suit property was let-out in two parts and the lease deed in respect of front unit was executed and registered showing the rent of Rs. 4,200.00 p.m. and second lease deed for the rear unit was executed and registered showing rent of Rs. 1,800.00 p.m. It may be mentioned here that one Mr. Netar S. Rana who was working as Executive Director with the appellant company at that time negotiated the deal on behalf of the appellant. After the agreement was reached in between the parties in July, 1978, and before it was formalised by registered agreement dated 1/08/1978, Mr. Netar S. Rana wrote letter dated 24/07/1978 on behalf of the appellant to deceased Krishna Prasada. This letter reads as under: