THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.No.106 of 2001 Date:27th December, 2010 Between: Suresh Mohan Oberai ... Appellant a n d 1. Dr.Kishore Taggarse & Anr. … Respondents *** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.No.106 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2001, passed in O.S.No.642 of 1994 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff declaring him as the owner of the suit schedule premises and directed the defendants to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of the judgment, and also assessed the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,800/- p.m. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father participated in the auction and purchased the suit schedule property. After the death of his father, he obtained sale certificate in his favour. After obtaining sale certificate, the defendants addressed a letter to the plaintiff to receive the rents. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants to vacate the premises. The plaintiff also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- p.m. The defendants filed written statement disputing the ownership of the plaintiff. They took the plea in the written statement that rents were sent by them on the direction of the government authority. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of possession of suit schedule property? 2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for past mesne profits of Rs.47,250/- with interest as prayed for? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as prayer for? 4) Whether the plaintiff is not the owner to claim for the relief as contended by defendants? 5) To what relief? The trial Court also framed the following additional issues: 1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 2. Whether the suit notice dt.1.2.94 is valid? On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B11. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through PW 2. 3. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule premises and accordingly, directed the defendants to vacate the suit premises. With regard to the mesne profits, the trial Court assessed at Rs.2,800/- p.m. With these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit, by judgment, dated 27.02.2001. Dis-satisfied with the quantum of amount fixed towards mesne profits, the plaintiff filed this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit schedule premises is located in a commercial locality and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in fixing the monthly rents at the rate of Rs.2,800/-. In a way, his contention is that the monthly rent for the suit schedule premises is required to be assessed at the rate of Rs.15,000/-. 6. We have gone through the evidence brought on record. Though the plaintiff took the plea that the suit schedule premises is capable of fetching rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- p.m., no evidence whatsoever has been adduced. No material has been placed before the trial Court to substantiate his claim that the suit schedule premises fetches Rs.15,000/- p.m. Indisputably, rent paid by the defendants as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs.1,400/- p.m. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence brought on record, fixed the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,800/- p.m. It means double the rent paid by the defendants as on the date of filing of the suit. For better appreciation, we may refer relevant portion of the judgment, which reads as hereunder: “Exs.X.1 and X.2 are no way helpful to the plaintiff to show that same analysis has to apply to the suit building. Admittedly, the property covered under Exs.X.1 and X.2 located in prime area. As seen from the record the rent was not fixed on the basis of square feet analogy. Considering the age of the building, considering the location of the building, considering the evidence of plaintiff and defendants, the mesne profits are determined as double the rent and defendants have to pay Rs.2,800/- p.m.” We express our inability to accede to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Hence, we find that the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J. Date:27th December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.No.106 of 2001 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) Date:27th December, 2010