SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rfa No. 468/2006

(2.) The suit premises which were leased to the respondent/defendant/bank by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord comprised of an area of 1483 sq. ft. of the carpet area on the ground floor and 890 sq ft. of the carpet area in the basement. The leased premises are part of the building situated at No. 14, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi. To prove the rate of rent for grant of mesne profits, evidence was led by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord of one PW-2, Mr. Praveen Kapoor. Mr. Praveen Kapoor is the landlord of the property No. 366, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi situated just across the road where the leased premises were located. The basement and ground floor of this property were let out by Mr. Praveen Kapoor to Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. in August 2000. The area let out by the PW-2 Mr. Praveen Kapoor to the tenant Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. was a total area of 4543 sq. ft. The ground floor rent payable by tenant Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. came to Rs. 66 per sq. ft. of the carpet area. PW-2, Mr. Praveen Kapoor, has proved and exhibited the Lease Deed dated 14.08.2000 (Ex.CW2/A) entered into with Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. The Lease Deed Ex.CW2/A is a photocopy of the registered Lease Deed. The original of the Lease Deed was brought by the PW-2 in Court and it is recorded on 10.09.2005 at the time of deposition of PW-2, Mr. Praveen Kapoor, that the original of the Lease Deed Ex.CW2/A has been seen and returned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant/bank however argues that the Lease Deed Ex.CW2/A which fixes the rent at Rs. 66 per sq. ft. of the carpet area is not a correct document to be referred to for proving the rate of rent of the suit leased premises inasmuch as whereas the suit premises were constructed before 1985, the leased premises which were the subject matter of Ex.CW2/A was constructed about 6 to 7 years prior to the witness PW-2 Mr. Praveen Kapoor deposing in the year 2005 i.e in around the year 1998-1999. An argument is also urged on behalf of the respondent/defendant/bank that the suit premises are different than the premises which are subject matter of Ex.CW2/A on account of premises subject matter of Ex. CW2/A having enough parking area.