Amresh Bajaj v. N.H.P.C.
Case brief
What is this about?
In appeals against a trial court judgment denying mesne profits, the High Court held that accepting rent does not create a fresh tenancy post-termination. The court awarded mesne profits at an agreed rate with a 10% yearly increase and 6% interest.
What did the court decide?
Award of mesne profits at varied rates with annual 10% increments and 6% simple interest on the net amount payable.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
- RFA Nos.622/2005 & 623/2005 % 1st November, 2017 1. RFA No.622/2005 AMRESH BAJAJ ..... Appellant Through: None.
versus NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION
..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Taneja, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Pranjal Saran, Advocate. 2. RFA No.623/2005 AMRESH BAJAJ ..... Appellant Through: None. versus
NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION
..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Taneja, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Pranjal Saran, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
RFA No.622/2005
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether mere acceptance of rent after lease termination constitutes a fresh tenancy under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act.
What rate of mesne profits should be awarded for the period of illegal occupation when exact lease evidence is unavailable.
Whether the trial court was correct in holding that a fresh tenancy existed solely due to receipt of enhanced rent.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Amresh Bajaj
- respondent
National Hydro Electric Power Corporation
Coram
Valmiki J. Mehta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court