VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD. Vs. RANBIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall dispose of the abovesaid revision petition alongwith C.M. No. 26865-CII of 2014 which has been filed by the tenant-respondent in C.R. No. 7230 of 2014 for recalling the order dated 30.10.2014, whereby, the revision petition filed by the landlords was dismissed seeking enhancement of the mesne profits which is @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.09.2014 has been upheld. In the main revision petition i.e. C.R. No. 7296 of 2014, the tenant/petitioner is challenging the fixation of mesne profits vide the same order in the revision petition which has been filed subsequently.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority was not justified in fixing the mesne profits at such a high rate and submitted that in the same building, tenants are paying @ Rs. 8 per sq. ft. whereas in adjoining areas in the same sector, the rate of2 rent varies to a maximum of Rs. 40 per sq. ft. whereas, in the present case, since the tenant is in occupation of 1860 sq. ft., the rent works out at Rs. 80 per sq. ft., which is on excessive side. He submits that in the absence of an valuation report and keeping in view that the lease deed provided of an increase clause of 10%, the amount is fanciful and whimsical and accordingly, submitted that the order is liable to be set aside. The application bearing C.M. No. 26865-CII of 2014 for recalling in the connected petition i.e. C.R. No. 7230 of 2014 is also being argued on the ground that the landlord, by virtue of the findings recorded by this Court on 30.10.2014, has tried to oust the petitioner by filing revision petition first for enhancement of the mesne profits and, therefore, the order should be recalled and the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Authority. Reliance has been placed on the observations of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad and another vs. Atma Ram Chauhan and others, 2011 7 SCC 755 and R.K. Bansal vs. Jag Parvesh Sharma,2012 4 CivCC 845 and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 2 MhLJ 134 which was further upheld by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and another vs. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2009 9 SCC 772. The premises in question, as noticed, measures 1860 sq. ft. and is situated on the first floor of SCO No. 1-3, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. The rent petition was instituted on 25.10.2007 by the landlords contending that there was a registered lease deed dated 09.04.1996 and renewed from time to time and finally, vide agreement dated 30.11.2004, renewal was for a period of 3 years from 01.09.2004 to 31.08.2007 and the rate of rent was3 Rs. 22,600/- per month. The ground was of sub-letting and arrears from 01.10.2007. Eviction order was passed on 23.08.2014 by the Rent Controller on the ground of sub-letting whereas on the ground of nonpayment, the petition was rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the rent assessed by the Court had been paid. In appeal, the application for mesne profits was filed by the landlords wherein, specific averment was made that the building in question comprised of 6 floors including the basement and there were many tenants in the building in question. The tenants on the second and third floor namely Crayons Advertising Ltd. and Mega Cabs. Ltd. were occupying 811 sq. ft. and paying monthly rent of Rs. 68,935/- which translated to Rs. 85 per sq. ft. which they had occupied in the year 2010 @ Rs. 1,40,000/-. Another tenant, the IDBI Bank Ltd. was occupying 1860 sq. ft. The rent had thereafter been increased to Rs. 1,61,000/- w.e.f. August, 2014 but the execution of the registered lease deed was, however, under process. As per the enhanced rent, the rent came to Rs. 87 per sq. ft. Another tenant namely Legrand on the second floor was occupying same area and was paying rent of Rs. 1,71,957/- and the rent came to Rs. 92.45 per sq. ft., however, the last lease deed was unregistered though the TDS certificates were attached. The claim was made for Rs. 2,04,600/- on the ground that there was area of 1000 sq. ft. comprising of balconies and the rent was not less than Rs. 110 per sq. ft. The application was contested by submitting that the lease deeds had been executed during the pendency of the ejectment petition by the respondents in favour of the tenants. The bank had vacated the premises because the rent was too high and the letter that the fresh lease deed was under process could not be taken into consideration. It was accordingly4 submitted that the lease deeds were the handy works of the landlords only to increase the rent and it was not the prevalent rent. It was pleaded that the ground floor of the same building had been leased out to the State Bank of India who was paying Rs. 27,500/- for 3500 sq. ft. since 2006 though the tenancy had started earlier and thus, the rate was Rs. 8 per sq. ft. Other lease deeds of properties in Sector 17, Chandigarh were also relied upon to show that the rent varies from Rs. 11 to Rs. 40 per sq. ft. and, therefore, the mesne profits claimed were unreasonable.

(3.) The Appellate Authority, in the order impugned, tabulated the lease deeds relied upon by the landlord and the tenants respectively and rejected the ones which pertain to the year 2003-04 keeping in mind the order of eviction dated 23.08.2014. Similarly, the other lease deeds belonging to Sector 17, Chandigarh for two different portions were rejected on the ground that they were not similarly situated and located. The unregistered lease deed relied upon of the same building by the landlord was also excluded. The lease deed dated 11.10.2012 in respect of 811 sq. ft. for Rs. 74,734/- @ Rs. 92 was kept in mind and also the one on the third floor of the same building which was fetching Rs. 1,40,000/- in September, 2010 with a stipulation of 15% increase after every 3 years. It was noticed that in September, 2014, the rent was increased to 1,61,000/- by IDBI Bank. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed directing that the amount be deposited in fixed deposit minus the accrued rent protecting the interest of the tenant. The amount was to be deposited within a period of 30 days and to be deposited by the 10th of each calendar month.