SHRI BIJENDRA PATHAK Vs. RAM KISHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) PRESENT appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008. The respondent had filed a suit for recovery of possession, by way of ejectment and for recovery of damages/ mesne profit. Counsel for the appellant submits that the possession of the suit property has been recovered. The appellant restricts her challenge in the appeal to the Judgment which has been passed with respect to issued No. 4 which pertains to damages/mesne profits. The necessary facts which have been noticed by the learned trial court are that the respondent is the owner of property bearing No. F -137, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, comprising of ground floor and first floor built on a plot measuring approximately 233 sq. yds. The respondent is stated to have purchased this property from its previous owner one Shri Jaswant Singh on 27.6.1990 vide registered sale deed. The appellant was in possession of the first floor of the suit property comprising of one room in the front portion measuring 9'3" x 8'3" and one room in the rear portion measuring 8'9"x 8'3" with balconies. The appellant was also enjoying the common facility of one toilet and one bath room situated at the ground floor of the suit premises. The suit of the respondent for recovery of possession by way of ejectment and recovery of damages/mesne profits was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2008. Since the appellant has restricted her challenge in the appeal with respect to issue No. 4, issue No. 4 is reproduced below:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant/ defendant in the suit failed to lead any evidence with respect to the quantum of mesne profits. The only ground which is sought to be raised in the present appeal that the mesne profits awarded are highly in excess, in comparison to the rates prevalent to the vicinity where the property is situated. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal. Ground C -1, pertains to issue No. 4, which reads as under: