ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2006 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 24.03.2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Tilak Raj seeking possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. D-985, New Friends Colony, New Delhi had been decreed along with mesne profits granted in favour of the plaintiff @ Rs.40.00 per sq. feet for ground floor, Rs.35.00 per sq. feet for the first floor, Rs.34.00 per sq. feet for the second floor and Rs.30.00 per sq. feet for the third floor from 01.09.1990 to 27.10.1997.

(2.) THE suit had been filed by the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord of the suit premises. The suit property had in the course of proceedings been handed over to the plaintiff. The suit property had been vacated on 31.10.1997 pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the parties. This was in terms of the order of the High Court where the statement of the respective counsel for the parties had been recorded. It was further agreed between the parties that by means of negotiation, the quantum of mesne profits and damages for the period up to the date of vacation of the suit property shall also be mutually settled and in case it is not settled, the plaintiff would be at liberty to move an application under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the � 1/2Code� 1/2) before the executing Court for determination of the said amount. The mesne profit could not be mutually settled.

(3.) THE evidence was led by the respective parties which included two witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and two on behalf of the defendant. Apart from the oral testimony, documentary evidence was also adduced which was the lease deed Ex. PW-1/1 executed between the plaintiff and Essar Commercial Vision dated 26.09.1997; Ex. PW-1/2 was the maintenance agreement and Ex.PW-1/3 was the hire agreement. On the other hand the defendant had produced only one document Ex. DW-1/1; it was about the handing over of possession back to the plaintiff. The Court had examined oral and documentary evidence led by the respective parties and granted mesne profits at the aforenoted rate.