MONA VERMA Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.3.1996 whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs/landlords was decreed with respect to possession of the suit premises and also granting mesne profits at Rs.7.789 per sq. ft. Claim in appeal is for a higher rate of mesne profits. So far as the decree of possession is concerned, the same is no longer in issue because the respondent bank has handed over possession of the premises to the appellants. THE issue is therefore only with regard to the rate of mesne profits which have to be awarded.

(2.) BEFORE the trial court, evidence was led on behalf of the appellant to prove the mesne profits which were sought with respect to the suit premises. The main evidence which was led and relied upon was of PW-2 one Sh. Ashok Arora who was an employee of the Karol Bagh branch of Vijaya Bank, being a stenographer therein, and which Vijaya Bank was a tenant in a premises situated on the same Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi where the tenanted premises/suit premises were located. Whereas the suit premises are numbered 10159, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Vijaya Bank was a tenant with respect to the premises no.10203,Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. PW-2 deposed that Vijaya Bank was paying rent in September, 1995, of Rs.1,87,220/- per month and which amount came to approximately Rs.55 per sq. ft. The witness produced a copy of the sale deed, which was only marked as ,,B, and the same was not exhibited because neither was a certified copy of the registered lease deed filed and nor was the original lease deed summoned from the landlord. Accordingly, the trial court granted the mesne profits as per the admitted rent and did not grant mesne profits at Rs.55 per square ft.

(3.) IN my opinion, the learned trial court has clearly committed an illegality and perversity in denying the mesne profits at the rate of 55 per sq. ft to the appellants in spite of the fact that the lease deed was not formally proved, however, as already noted in the order dated 9.2.2011, there is no cross-examination of PW-2 that he is not the employee of the Vijaya Bank, that he was not authorized to come and give evidence on behalf of the Vijaya Bank and Vijaya Bank was not a tenant of the premises at Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh paying rent w.e.f. 25.11.1992 of Rs.1,87,220/- per month. The aforesaid conclusion emerges because the witness was not a private interested witness who would be deposing falsely, inasmuch PW-2 was an employee of a public sector bank. The said witness had also brought and exhibited an authorization letter from the bank exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 and which authorized him to depose on behalf of the bank. I may note that the rate of rent paid by Vijaya Bank was Rs.55 per sq. ft. from the year 1992 and the period in question in the present case is w.e.f. 1.9.1992, i.e. the same period.