DR. NAZAR SINGH Vs. MISS PROMILA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of R.F.A. No. 176 of 1974 and the cross appeal, R.F.A. No. 188 of 1974 which have arisen out of a suit filed by Dr. Nazar Singh for mesne profits for wrongful use and occupation of the house after termination of the tenancy. The damages were claimed at the rate of double the agreed rent of Rs. 275/ - per month which were allowed by the trial Court relying on two decisions, one of the Lahore High Court in Mul Raj v. Inder Singh and others : A. I. R. 1928 Lah. 554, and the other of this Court in R.S.A. No. 1371 of 1969 (Atma Ram v. Smt. Jai Rani Kapur R.S.A. No. 1371 of 1969) decided on September 23, 1969. However, the claim of the Plaintiff qua drawing room of the house after February 11, 1969 was turned down which led to the filing of R.F.A. No. 176 by him. The Defendant filed a cross appeal to challenge the quantum of the damages allowed. When this case came up for hearing before me, sitting singly, it was pointed out that there was a direct conflict in my earlier decision in Harbilas v. Roshan Lal, (1982) 84 P.L.R. 384, and the decision in Atma Ram's case (supra). So I referred the following question to a larger Bench:

(2.) A careful perusal of the judgment in Atma Ram's case (supra), however, would show that the learned Judge never laid down therein an abstract principle of law that after the termination of the tenancy the landlord would be entitled to charge mesne profits or damages for wrongful occupation at the rate of double the agreed rent. After quoting the following passage from a Division Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Mul Raj's case (supra) the learned Judge observed that there was no error of law in the finding of the court below to justify interference in second appeal and dismissed the same:

(3.) IN Sardar Singh's case (supra), the Bench observed: "the rule according to which double the rent is taken as suitable measure of damages in such cases is taken from English law. The matter is, no doubt, regulated by Statute in England but the rule has been held to be taken to be ordinarily a suitable guide in such cases in this Province. The rule is, of course, not inflexible and less or more may be awarded by way of damages according to the circumstances: Of Mul Raj v. Indar Singh also Narain Dass v. Dharam Das : A. I. R. 1932 Lah. 275, if there is evidence to justify such a course." None of the two decisions thus has laid down any absolute rule of law that the damages for wrongful use and occupation have to be awarded at double the rent Instead the view consistently has been that it is for the court to assess reasonable damages to be awarded for the contumacious holding over of the property by the tenant after the termination of the tenancy.