Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:
10. h December, 2018 $~O-32 * % + CS(OS) 252/2016 & I.A.6507/2016, 10972/2018, 10973/2018, 11773/2018 SURENDRA NATH PASRICHA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Satvik Varma, Mr.Udit Chauhan, Advocates. versus KAMLA PASRICHA AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr.Shivansh Soni, Ms.Deepika Mihsra, Advocates along with Mrs.Kamla Pasricha, Mrs.Simmi Nayyar, Defendants in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) I.A. 10973/2018 (Under Order XII Rule
6) 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of first floor and barsati floor of property bearing No.25/24, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-11008.
2. Vide order dated 15th March, 2018, this Court partly decreed the suit and passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the CS(OS) 252/2016 Page 1 of 4 defendants. This suit is continuing with respect to plaintiff’s claim of the mesne profits.
3. The plaintiff has filed this application to seek a decree for mesne profits on the basis of the admissions on the defendant No.2 in the written statement.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff claimed mesne profits @ Rs.60,000/- per month which was contested by the defendants by pleading that the monthly rent of the suit property would not be more than Rs.40,000/- per month. It is submitted that the plaintiff be granted mesne profits @ Rs.40,000/- per month as admitted by the defendants. Reliance is placed on Vijay Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura, (2007) 142 DLT483(DB), Abdul Hamid v. Charanjit Lal Mehra, (1998) 74 DLT476 5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have not admitted the rent of the suit property to be Rs.40,000/- per month. It is submitted that the statement made in the written statement that monthly rent of the suit property would not be more than Rs.40,000/-, is not an admission and no decree can be passed on this basis. Learned counsel for the defendants submit that the market rent of the suit property is Rs.24,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the plaintiff should lead evidence to prove his claim.
6. The relevant portion of para 14 of the written statement is reproduced hereunder: ....It is denied that both the floors can fetch a sum of Rs.60,000. “14. It is further vehemently denied that the Defendants have caused any loss to the Plaintiff let along to the tune of Rs.8,40,000. It is submitted CS(OS) 252/2016 Page 2 of 4 that the market rent of the two floors at present day rates would be not more than Rs.40,000.” (Emphasis Supplied) 7. In para 6 of the reply on merits to I.A.10972/2018, the defendants have taken a stand that the alleged admission is a statement of fact but the plaintiff is required to prove the same. Para 6 of the reply on merits to I.A.10972/2018 is reproduced hereunder: “6. The contents of paragraph 6 of the application are incorrect and are denied. It is denied that the answering Defendant have admitted the rate of rent in their Written Statement. The pleadings of the Defendant No.2 may be referred to in this regard. The Defendant No.2 has specifically stated that the market rent of two floor at present rates „would not be more than Rs.40,000/-‟. It is denied that this Hon‟ble Court is not required to determine the question as records the quantum of mesne profits which is payable to the Plaintiff as alleged. It is pertinent to submit that the Plaintiff has misconstrued the pleadings of the answering Defendant. The pleadings of the answering Defendant merely indicate that the rate of rent has claimed by the Plaintiff in the pleadings at Rs.60,000/- is denied. Moreover it is mentioned that the present rent would not be more than Rs.40,000/- per month. The aforesaid pleading does not amount to an admission on the rent rate of rent at Rs.40,000/- per month but only indicates maximum amount which may be fetched by the property at present day rate. Therefore the alleged admission is in fact merely a statement of fact and plaintiff is still required to prove his claim of mesne profits by leading evidence.” 8. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to pass a decree on admissions where the admissions of fact made either in the pleading or otherwise are sufficient to pass a decree. (Emphasis Supplied) CS(OS) 252/2016 Page 3 of 4 9. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the defendants have clearly admitted the market rent of the suit property to be Rs.40,000/- per month. The contrary stand of the defendants taken before this Court is hereby rejected. The defendant’s submission that the admission, if at all, is to the liability to pay but not with respect to the amount to be paid, is also rejected.
10. The application is allowed and the plaintiff’s suit is decreed for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.40,000/- per month along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of handing over of the possession by the defendants to the plaintiff i.e. 04th June, 2018.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff do not press for any other relief in this suit. The suit is, therefore, disposed of. The pending applications are also disposed of. DECEMBER10 2018 dk J.R. MIDHA, J.
CS(OS) 252/2016 Page 4 of 4