Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Valmiki Mehta, J. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-tenant impugning the judgment of the trial court whereby mesne profits were awarded to the respondent-landlord.

The appellant was a tenant in the subject premises. The tenancy commenced in 1986 and was terminated in 1998 vide legal notice. The appellant in the meanwhile, during the pendency of suit for possession and mesne profits, handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord in 1999. Therefore, the mesne profits were calculated from May 1998 to August 1999 (date of filing the suit to date of handing over of possession). Against the award of mesne profits, the appellant filed the present regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC.

The High Court noted that the trial court relied on the rent paid by another tenant to calculate the mesne profits. It was also observed that some amount of honest guess work is always involved in calculation of mesne profits, therefore, once the rent paid on similar premises on same area was taken as the basis, there was no illegality in the award of the mesne profits passed by the trial court. Furthermore, the definition of mesne profits in Section 2(12) CPC provides that mesne profits include the interest payable thereon. Holding that the judgment impugned did not require any interfere, the learned Judge went on to observe that there is no inherent right in citizens of this country, who are tenants, to violate the law by overstaying in the premises where the tenancy stands dismissed. The appeal was dismissed. [Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Seven Seas Leasing Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11391, decided on 19-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein a stay was granted on the possession notice issued by the respondent Bank to the petitioner, directing the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in proper proceedings.

The petitioners were tenants of Respondent 1 who was a debtor of Respondent 2 State Bank of India. Respondent 1 defaulted in re-payment of the loan and respondent 2-SBI issued notice to Respondent 1 to repay the loan within sixty days. Also, respondent 2 SBI issued notices to the petitioners-tenants, to evict the building within seven days which was a Secured Asset and would be taken over in the condition of non-payment of the loan, under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Aggrieved by the said notices, the petitioners field the instant petition.

The Court perused the record and placing reliance on its earlier decisions held that the tenants too have a right to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4-A) of SARFAESI Act. Holding that since the petitioners had an alternate and efficacious remedy available to them under the said Act, the Court declined to consider the petitions on merit. The petitioners were given liberty and directions to approach the DRT under proper proceedings within one month. Further, SBI was directed not to take any action for eviction of the petitioners for a period of four weeks. The petitions were accordingly disposed of. [Aravindamma v. K.S. Jayalakshmammanni,  2018 SCC OnLine Kar 530, order dated 5.3.2018]