- 1 - IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA 327 of 2007. Date of decision August 27, 2009. Sh. Laxmi Chand ….Appellant. Versus Sh. Sumit Kumar alias Sh. Sunit Kumar …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court refusing mesne profits to the landlord @ Rs.2000/- per month. Cross Objections have been filed by the respondent challenging the findings of the Courts below on the question of tenancy and mesne profits. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Taking up the questions of law on which the appeal has been admitted, namely questions 1, 2 and 3, i.e. (1) whether the findings of the Courts below are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the case and as such palpably illegal and erroneous and if so to what effect, (2) whether after having found the respondent in illegal possession of the property, as also held in the earlier suit and appeal, were the Courts justified in not granting mesne profits to the appellant as claimed in the suit @ Rs.2000/- per month and (3) whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are sustainable in the eyes of law to the extent they have declined the relief to the appellant; all that need be said is that both the Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that mesne profits are payable @ Rs.400/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the evidence of PW-2 Narinder Kumar and PW-3 Rajiv Kumar clearly established that the rent of the suit premises is Rs.2000/- per month. This submission cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no documentary evidence on record to establish this rate of rent/ lease money. This is a - 3 - finding of fact which has been arrived at by both the Courts below. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Courts below. All the questions, therefore, are answered against the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Taking up the cross objections, all that need be said is that the respondent, while appearing as DW-1, has admitted the appellant to be the landlord. On the question of determination of mesne profits, it is a question of fact. Both the Courts having concurrently found against the cross objector, I find no perversity either in the evidence or its appreciation. The Cross objections are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 27, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.