JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. This is a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and for grant of mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of property bearing flat No. SF-03, Apsara Arcade; Pusa Road, New Delhi. The plaintiffs are the owners of this property and had leased it to the defendant through a duly registered lease deed dated 30th October, 1995. It is averred in the plaint that rent has been paid only up to March, 1996. Since the defendant was not paying its dues towards rental as well as towards maintenance, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.
2. On 8.12.1997 it was ordered that the defendant should continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. (54,000/- per month within four weeks. Against this order the defendant filed FAO (OS) 32/98 which was dismissed. On 19.5.1998 the defendant was given an opportunity to explain why its defense should not be struck off for non-compliance of the aforementioned order dated 8.12.1997. On 24.7.1998 the defense of the defendant was struck off. On the subsequent date the defendant was proceeded ex parte and plaintiffs were directed to file affidavits by way of evidence. An affidavit by way of evidence was firstly filed on 24.10.1998 and thereafter a fresh affidavit was permitted to be filed by order dated 9.4.1999 and this was so done on 12.5.1999.
3. The plaintiffs have proved the lease deed which is Exhibit PW1/2. It contained covenants that the rent was agreed as Rs. 64,000/- per month. Though the initial period of letting was for three years, a renewal for another three years was envisaged at a 20% increase over the previous rent. Clause 8 further witnessed that the lessee (the defendant) shall pay all charges for common services Tike maintenance and of running of lifts, air conditioning, lighting and maintenance of common places, staircases, fire-fighting equipments, etc. Exhibit PW 1/3 is a reply-cum-notice dated 26th July, 1996 which was served on the defendant. In this letter the plaintiffs had, inter alia, raised a claim for Rs. 2,56,000/- towards rent with effect from 1.4.1996 upto 31.7.1996. Invoking Clause 6 of lease deed (Exhibit PW 1/2) the tenancy was terminated and the defendant was called upon to hand over peaceful possession of the demised premises on or before 31.8.1996. Exhibit PW 1/3 was posted on 31.7.1996 and the A.D. cards are PW 1/6 and PW 1/7. Although these A.D. cards do not show the date of delivery of Exhibit PW 1/3 it can be fairly assumed that this occurred well before 15.8.1996. Hence the statutory obligation of issuance of a notice as contemplated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been duly met. I accordingly hold that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant and that this relationship was validly terminated. The plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the demised premises on 31.8.1996. I accordingly decree the plaintiffs prayer for possession in respect of premises bearing No. SF-03, Apsara Arcade, Pusa Road, New Delhi.
4. The rate of rent of Rs. 64,000/- stands proved. The plaintiffs have deposed that the rent has been paid by the defendant only up to March, 1996. As has been mentioned above an interlocutory order for payment of this amount during the pendency of the suit
had been granted, an appeal against this order had also been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. I hold that plaintiffs have proved their case for the grant of a decree or arrears of rent for the period commencing 1.4.1996 and ending 31.8.1996. Accordingly a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
5. For the period starting from 1.9.1996 the defendant was in wrongful and illegal possession of the suit property since its tenancy had been validly terminated and they were called upon to hand over possession on 31.8.1996. It has been deposed on behalf of plaintiffs that the market rent was Rs. 80,000/- exclusive of the electricity, water and maintenance charges. The period of lease was up to September, 1998. In my view it would not be justified to grant mesne profits for the period prior to September, 1998 at a rate higher than the agreed rent of Rs.64,000/-. I accordingly decree the claim for mesne profits for the period commencing September, 1996 to September, 1998 at the rate of Rs. 64,0007- per month.
6. The question remains what is the quantum of mesne profits after the period September, 1998. The plaintiffs would claim damages at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per month since it has been deposed on their behalf that this was the market rent. However, it is commonly known the rents in Delhi are on the decline. Since the lease deed itself envisages an increase of 20% on the renewed period, I hold that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 76,800/- (Rs. 64,000 + 20%) per month, up to and inclusive of the month in which the plaintiffs have obtained possession of the suit property. I decree the claim for mesne profits accordingly.
7. The plaintiffs shall also be further entitled to a decree for the aggregate of the unpaid maintenance dues upto and inclusive of the month in which it has obtained possession of the suit property.
8. The plaintiffs shall pay, as per their undertaking, additional Court fee as may be commuted. The suit is decreed in the above terms.
9. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.