Delhi High Court State Bank Of India vs Pawanveer Singh & Anr

 
FREE EXCERPT

Delhi:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA 582/2015

STATE BANK OF INDIA

..... Appellant

Through: Mr S.N. Relan, Adv.

versus

PAWANVEER SINGH & ANR

..... Respondents

Through: Mr Virender Mehta & Mr R.K. Mehta,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

ORDER

%

28.08.2015

Caveat 901/2015

  1. Since the caveators/ respondents have entered appearance, caveat stands discharged.

    CM No. 17314/2015 (Exemption)

  2. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

    RFA 582/2015 & CM Nos. 17315/2015 (Stay) & 17316/2015 ((O. 41 R. 27 r/w S. 151 CPC)

  3. This is an appeal filed against judgement and decree dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

  4. Mr Relan, who appears on behalf of the appellant, in support of the appeal, has raised, only, the following two grounds, before me, to assail the aforementioned judgement.

    4.1 First, that the period for which the mesne profit have been calculated, is both on facts and in law, erroneous for the reason that the tenancy was not terminated by respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2. It is stated that, even though respondent no.2 / plaintiff no.2 was the land lord of the appellant/ defendant, the tenancy had been terminated by respondent no.1 / plaintiff no.1. It is thus, the contention of the appellant/ defendant, that the tenancy did not get terminated as provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, therefore, the finding that he was in unauthorized occupation as returned by the trial court is erroneous. In support of this submission, Mr Relan, further contends that the plaint was signed only by respondent no.1 / plaintiff no.1.

    4.2 Second, the rate at which the mesne profits have been awarded by the trial court is exorbitant. In respect of this ground, Mr Relan concedes that relevant evidence was not placed before the trial court by the appellant/ defendant and, therefore, relies upon the accompanying application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC), to place before this court, at this juncture, the relevant material, for calculation of the mesne profits.

  5. I may only note that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is accompanied by a photocopy of a purported lease deed dated 29.03.2006, executed between, one, Dr. Virender Kumar Saini and the Punjab & Sind Bank in respect of premises located on the ground floor at M-14, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The tenure of the said lease deed appears to span a period...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL