NISHA Vs. P.N.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.43,04,028.00 as damages/mesne profits for use and occupation of basement in premises no. XVI/10203, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 3570 square feet for the period from September, 2000 to 8th December, 2002 @ Rs.34.00 per square foot per month and from 9th December, 2002 to 8th August, 2003 @ Rs.59.00 per square foot per month. Out of this amount, the plaintiff had been receiving a sum of Rs.24,633.00 per month as user charges from the defendant so she had reduced the amount by Rs.8,37,522.00 and filed this suit claiming Rs.43,04,028.00.

(2.) THE defendant, Punjab National Bank was a tenant in the basement and last rent paid was @ Rs.24,633.00 per month. According to the plaintiff, this tenancy came to an end by efflux of time, as specified in the lease agreement, on 17th August, 1991. This lease was not further extended. She then served a notice on the defendant dated 3rd January, 1992 and then on 12th February, 1992 terminating the lease with effect from 17th March, 1992. Since the premises was not vacated she filed a suit for possession in April, 1992 reserving her right to file a suit for damages. During pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise and moved an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC stating therein that the parties had amicably settled their disputes and defendant had agreed to vacate and hand over the possession of premises to the plaintiff on or before 30th June, 2003 and defendant also undertook to pay the rent/charges for use and occupation @ Rs.24,633.00 as well as electricity charges as per the bills upto date of handing over the vacant possession.

(3.) THE defendant in the written statement took preliminary objection that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule2 CPC since the plaintiff had not claimed damages when she filed suit for possession against the defendant on the ground of termination of tenancy. It is also submitted that in the Compromise entered into between the parties before the Civil Judge on 9th May, 2003, the defendant-bank had agreed to hand over the vacant possession and to continue to pay rent as charges for use and occupation of premises and electricity bills and that satisfied the claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits and damages. This compromise was duly signed by both the parties and the parties had also made statement in the Court. Thus, no further claim for mesne profits/damages could be filed by the plaintiff.