NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. ARVIND AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have impugned the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2007 which has reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 11.7.2005. Two suits had been filed bearing suit No. 395/2002 & 396/2002 qua suit property bearing No.601, 6 th floor, Ashoka Estate, 24 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and 614, 6th Floor, Ashoka Estate, 24 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. They had been consolidated and vide judgment and decree dated 11.7.2005 the suits filed by the plaintiffs Arvind Aggarwal and Smt. Chandan Aggarwal seeking recovery and possession of the suit property had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. The suits of the plaintiffs stood decreed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF no.1 is the owner/landlord of the aforenoted suit property. It had been leased out to defendant no.1 vide agreement dated 02.01.1984 w.e.f. 01.01.1984; rent was Rs.5103/- per month & Rs.7,479/- respectively for the 2 suit properties which was increased from time to time. Legal notice dated 06.5.1995 was sent to the defendant terminating his tenancy w.e.f. 31.5.1995; defendant paid no heed to the same. Last paid rent was Rs.7348.80 & Rs. 10,770/- per month. Defendant had not paid rent w.e.f. 01.3.1995 to 31.5.1995; sum of Rs.22,046.40 & Rs.32,310/- respectively was due due the plaintiffs. In spite of legal notice defendant had failed to vacate the suit property. Present suit was accordingly filed for possession as also damages for unauthorized use and occupation with a prayer that an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Code) be carried out to determine the rate of damages to be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. Trial judge while dealing with issue no.6 had noted that the possession of the suit property has since been delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff and the security amount has also since been returned. Only question was the determination of mesne profits which was due and payable if any by the defendant. This was dealt with while disposing of issue no.7. Court had examined the oral and documentary evidence as also communications exchanged between the parties. Admittedly suit property had been delivered to the plaintiff on 06.1.1997. Court was of the view that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.