HARBANS SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.2002 whereby the Trial Court has granted mesne profits only at Rs.10,000/- per month for the period from 1.8.1997 to 28.2.2001 although the appellants/landlords/plaintiffs proved the lease agreement dated 24.11.1997, Ex.PW1/1 with respect to a premises within the same area by which rent as on 24.11.1997 was Rs.1,20,000/- and that too with respect to a premises of about 2,500 square feet whereas the suit premises had an area of 4327 sq. feet.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has argued that the Trial Court has committed a clear cut illegality and perversity in totally overlooking this lease agreement, Ex.PW1/1 and granting mesne profits at only Rs.10,000/- per month, simply on the ground that the respondent/UOI/defendant was not running any profit making venture and was performing a sovereign function. It is argued that this logic and rationale of the Trial Court is quite clearly fallacious because there is no law that the normal law of land does not apply to the UOI. I to an extent agree with the arguments as advanced by counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in terms of what I am stating below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants argued that the lease deed, Ex.PW1/1 was for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with respect to an area of 2,500 square feet and since the subject premises were of 4,327 square feet, the appellants should be held entitled to at least Rs.2,50,000/- per month. LEARNED counsel for the respondent however argued that the appellants have failed to prove any similarities between the subject premises and the premises being the subject matter of the lease agreement, Ex.PW1/1 and therefore an amount of Rs,2,50,000/- is quite clearly unjustified.