LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-141

MARUDHAR SERVICES LTD Vs. VED PARKASH

Decided On May 04, 2012
Marudhar Services Ltd Appellant
V/S
VED PARKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 has died during the pendency of the appeal and an oral request of learned counsel for the parties is accepted, whereby respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 being the wife of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 is substituted as a legal heir of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1. The name of respondent No.1 is, accordingly, deleted from the array of parties. For the sake of convenience the original plaintiffs are referred to as the respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 16.4.2004 decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The respondents/plaintiffs have also filed cross-objections in this appeal, inasmuch as, the respondents/plaintiffs claim that the arrears of rent ought to have been granted at Rs.10,000/- per month and not Rs.6,000/- per month, and there should be enhancement in the rate of the mesne profits granted.

(3.) THE tenancy being a monthly tenancy, was terminated by the plaintiffs/respondents/landlords by a legal notice dated 2.3.1998, and receipt of which is not disputed by the appellants/defendants. The said notice was in fact replied to by the appellants/defendants vide reply dated 23.4.1998. In the notice, the respondents/plaintiffs claimed arrears of rent @Rs.10,000/- from 1.9.1995 to 31.3.1998 and mesne profits from 1.4.1998 till the date when physical possession of the tenanted premises is handed over. During the pendency of the suit, which was filed for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits, the respondents/landlords filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC with respect to the relief of possession, and which application on being allowed, and the order being upheld by this Court, the appellants/defendants handed over possession in January, 2001. The respondents/plaintiffs, however, claimed that the possession was handed over in March, 2001.