INCLEN TRUST INT Vs. RD RAMNATH COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 7.4.2011 decreeing the suit for mesne profits. The suit was for possession and mesne profits, and possession of the suit premises were already delivered to the respondent / plaintiff by the appellant / defendant on 25.5.2009.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant / defendant took on rent w.e.f. 7.4.2005 the suit premises being the 5th Floor of Building No.18, Yusuf Sarai Community Center, New Delhi ad measuring 2984 sq. ft. The rate of rent between the parties was fixed at Rs.1,10,000/- per month and additionally there was a six months interest free rent deposit. The tenancy being a monthly tenancy was terminated by the respondent / plaintiff by legal notice dated 12.4.2008 and since the appellant / defendant failed to vacate the suit premises, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits came to be filed.

(3.) BEFORE the trial court, the respondent / plaintiff in order to prove the mesne profits, filed a rent deed, Ex. PW1/2, dated 9.1.2009 entered into between the respondent / plaintiff and M/s. Brij Capital Reality Pvt. Ltd. with respect to 4th Floor portion of the same building comprising 1365 per sq. ft. The rate of rent fixed was Rs.1,85,000/- per month, and which comes to Rs.135 per sq. ft. Though the trial court has discarded this lease deed, I am of the opinion that the trial court was totally unjustified in doing so inasmuch as this document was duly proved and exhibited before the trial court. There was no objection to the exhibition of this document when the same was exhibited by filing of affidavit by way of evidence by the respondent / landlord / plaintiff. Once there is no objection to the exhibition of the document, the said document can always be looked into vide R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 752. Though there is a suggestion in the cross- examination that the lease deed Ex.PW1/2 is executed in connivance with the tenant of the lease deed Ex. PW1/2, namely, M/s. Brij Capital Reality Pvt. Ltd., however, I have failed to understand that what could be the connivance because after all the lease was entered into and duly acted upon. It is not the stand of the appellant/defendant that this lease deed is a forged and fabricated document and was never acted upon. I, therefore, hold that the trial court committed an error in discarding the lease deed Ex. PW1/2. I, therefore, hold that the trial court ought to have looked into this document Ex. PW1/2, the lease deed dated 9.1.2009 which pertains to the same building and just one floor above the suit premises.