Allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Samala Raja Mallaiah (died)

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023CRP/3437/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The Court upheld the Senior Civil Judge's order determining mesne profits but reduced the rent enhancement rate from 20% to 15% for subsequent periods.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was maintained in all other respects but the enhancement of rent for subsequent slabs was reduced to 15% instead of 20%.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Samala Raja… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:343 7 0F 2014

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 constitution of lndia against the order dated 09.04.2014 in l.ANo.905 of 2005 in o.S.No. 16 of 1997 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, rep by its Chairman, Mumbai.

¶10

chief.. Regional Marrager, Hindustan petroleum corporation Limited, 130/1 , Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Samala Raja Mallaiah (died), through L,R. Dr. Samala Ramaswamy, Dr. 99qgl, [9m.as.rya_m-V,^{S/o Late S.R.Mailaiah, Occ:pvt Medicat pratiitioner,} ryg ryg*^{Yrcrk, U.S.A., through his G.p.A.Holder Samala} Vinayak, S/o Late S.R.Mallai Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business R/o. Hyderabad ioaO,^{- -} Nizamabad

¶14

2 Pf. ?g.u]g B"Tq:ryuT.V,^{S/o Lale S.R.Ma[aiah,Occ pvt Medicat pracritioner,} ryg rygw^{York, U.S.A., throughhis- G.p.A.HotderSamala} Vinayak, S/o Late S R.Mallai Aged about 45 ye-ars, Occ Business R/o. Hyderaba6 Road;^---- Nizamabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶16

CRPMP. NO:469 6 0F 2014

¶17

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 09.04.2014 passed in l.ANo.905 of 2005 in o.'s.wo to or 1997 on the file the Senior Civil Judge Nizamabad.

¶18

¶19

CRP P. NO: 5260 OF 2014

¶20

petition under Section 14g. CpC praying that in_ th_e circumstances stated in rhe affidavit fited in suppo,n g1 lh" p"iirioii, in",.iitirr - court may be pteased ro 46e6s enrarge of the 2014 in rime CRp.No sranred tiy ly^lni.- or zo7+ niroi""b"rrt ii i,il,i,il,,or.^{,oi,irarcstzu,o} comptiance.in CRp.Mp.no.

¶21

CRPMP.NO:2 175 0F 2016

¶22

Between:

¶23

'1. Samala Raia Malla

¶24

NrzamabadS RMaflai Aged about 45 +,+1.,"t:ru*#+ggg[r[:,j,F,yeirs, O"C, ti,]."ii"'.'

¶25

Dr. Samala Ramas, fifl,jfu}itr#.,:'"Hsslfl^{#flfl €[::"i5r,Hila's;t:?r}

¶26

AND

¶27

...PET|TIoNERS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

1 . Hindustan petroleu rep by its chri.r"nlrr,4croJBsl'tion^{Limited' 't7' Jamshedji} rata Road, Mumbai,

¶29

' 3:13i.[?tJi[3!il xlT.J$Xtltan^{Petroreum corporario.r} Limed, I 30/1,

¶30

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumsrtances stated in the affidavit fited in suooort^of tne petitilnliiilfi,'si C-ourt may be pteased vacate the interim orderdated io os.zorain aEr,r,ii,'ni".'oinulr,14in cRp No.343zr2o14 85l.lx13,',iT;&Ti,ii,'l;:te;;^{in il s.srr,"oJin o, *o} ,u,,,rgz on the ri-re or

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner : SRl. M. RAVTNORANATH REDDY

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI T. V. KALYAN SINGH

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

¶36

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI

¶37

CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.3437 of2OL4

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

Assailing the orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, dated 09.04.2014 in I.A. No. 906 of 2005 in O.S. No. 16 of 1997, the present revision is frled by the defendantsHPCL. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application frled by the plaintiffs under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC determining the mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property based on the Advocate-Commissioner appointed for the said purpose.

¶40

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.

¶41

The facts of the case are that, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 16 of l99Z for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and mesne profits was decreed on 02.O1.2OO3. Thereagainst, the appeal arrd the SLp preferred by the defendants stood dismissed and thus the proceedings attained finality and the plaintiffs were handed over vacant possession of the property on 11.04.2005. Seeking determination of mesne prohts from 18.02.1994 to 11.04.2005,

¶42

2 MGP,J CRt' No. 3437 of 2014

¶43

the plaintiffs filed the impugned applic al ion seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The said application was opposed by the defendants Company contending that as the vacant land was taken on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.4OO/-, the said amount would be the amount that has to be paid for the entire land towards mesne profits. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has appointed the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain mesne prohts in resprsl;1 of the suit schedule property for the specified period. Aiter due enquiry, the Advocate-Commissioner hled his report ascertaining the mesne profits as under:-

¶44

(i) Rs.25l- per sq.yd. from 18.O2.1994 to 17.O2.1992; (ii) Rs.30/- per sq.yds. from 18.02.1997 to t7.r)2.2OOO; (iii) Rs.36/- per sq.yd. from 18.02.20 OO to tT.O2..2Oo3; & (iv) Rs.43.20 ps. per sq.yd. from 1a.02.2003 ro 1 l.O4.2OOS.

¶45

Both the parties were heard on ttre Advocate_ commissioner report. p.ws. I and 2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and Exs.A. I to A. 10 were marked. On behalf of defendants, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs.B. 1 to B.4 were marked. The trial court, on evaluation of evidence adduced by both the parties, allowed the I.A. determining the market value

¶46

MGP,J CW No. 3137 of 2014

¶47

¶48

r ry

¶49

of the suit schedule property as firxed by the AdvocateCommissioner. Hence, the present revision by the defendants Company.

¶50

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners-defendants Company contends that the trial Court, without considering the documents marked on behalf of the defendants, has simply accepted the report of the Advocate-Commissioner without assigning any reasons. It is contended that while ascertaining the mesne prohts, although the market value certificate is not the basis, the trial Court erroneously determined the mesne profits based on the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, which refers only to the .market value certiflcates. The trial Court as well as the Advocate-Commissioner erred in considering the rents per square yard basis as there was no practice to pay rents on square yard basis particularly from 1994 to 2OO4 and. none of the documents disclose that the rents are to be payable on square yard basis. It is further contended that the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the documents relied on by the defendants which disclose that for the relevant period, the rent that was being paid to a retail outlet in a property that is situated within the vicinity having

¶51

¶52

MGP,J CRr' .t'/o. 3137 ol20 t l

¶53

more value than the suit property was not more -han Rs.20O/_ per month.

¶54

On the other hand, the learned counsel a1>pearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs contends that the learned trial Court has rightly accepted the report of t ht: Advocate_ Commissioner for ascertaining mesne profits, as :he AdvocateCommissioner, after due enquiry and con si(jering the documents filed by both the parties, has rightly s;uggested the mesne profits for the relevant period and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Cour:.

¶55

7 Heard both the learned counsel and pemsed the material available on record.

¶56

The main challenge by the revision petitiont:rs as to the ascertainment of the mesne profits is that the trial Court ought not to have relied on the report of the Advocate-Commissioner in which, the Advocate-Commissioner determinecl the mesne prolits based on the market value certificates. It ts contended that the basis for determination of the amount of nresne profits depends on the facts and circumstances of each case considering the place where the property is situated i.e., village or city or metropolitan city, location, nature of premises i.e.

¶57

r ry

¶58

)

¶59

MGP.J CRP No. Ji 37 of2014

¶60

commercial or residential area and the rate of rent precedent on which premises can be let out are the guiding factors in the facts of individual case. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Martin and Harris Private Limited v. Rajendra Mehtar. The learned counsel, placing reliance on Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan2 has contended that the market value of the propert5r could not be the basis for frxing the monthly compensation/mesne profits. It is contended that the assessment of mesne profits on square yard basis adopted by the trial Court is untenable and unsustainable and that the defendants ar_e liable to pay mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the plaintiffs would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises.

¶61

Perused the report of the Advocate_Commissioner. The Commissioner has considered in detail Exs.A. I to A.1O and Exs.B.1 to 8.4 while assessing the amount of mesne prohts. The Commissioner has discussed in detail the rental values of different outlets of various petroleum companies covered by

¶62

| (2022) 8 SCC s27

¶63

'z2022SCC Online SC 1548

¶64

6 MGP,J ('RP No 3437 of20t1

¶65

¶66

Exs.A.2 to A.8 which are located within 3_4 kilometers radiation. Among them, Ex.A.2 is the letter dated 07.05.2003 addressed by the Chief Regional Manager, HpCL tc, the South Central Railways pertaining to Sai Baba Service Station, which is the outlet of the defendants Company situated very near to the suit schedule land i.e., within a distance of one, kilometer. As per E.x.A.2, the defendants Company was asl:ed to pay Rs.38,70,992l- towards rent from 0I.04.19g6 to 31.03.2000, which works out to Rs.23,O4l/- per month and Rr;. 16.65 ps. per sq.yard. Even the contents of the letter were adrnitted by the Sales Officer of the defendants Company. Mo reover, the Advocate-Commissioner has considered the documerrts hled by the defendants, which are marked as Exs.B.l to U.4. Ex.B.1 lease deed pertains to the land situated at Wee kly Bazar, Nizamabad, owned by Bapuji Vachnalaya Society, ,!.hrrreunder the land was leased out to the defendants Company at Rs.1,900/- per month. However, as the said petrol station was not having diesel outlet and no service station, and as tlre dealer who was dealing with the outlet of the company was an Ex.MLA, the Advocate-Commissioner discarded the sarrlrt from consideration. So also, Exs.B.2 & B.3 pertain to piec:e of lands which are owned by the dealer of the company who was running

¶67

MGP,J CRP No. 3437 of 2014

¶68

¶69

¶70

the petrol pump outlet. The petrol pump outlet covered by Ex.B.4 was owned by the wife of the dealer of the company who was already running the petrol pump outlet. As the lease deeds disclose that the petrol pump outlets were started only after the execution of the lease deed by the dealers, the Advocate-Commissioner excluded those documents from consideration for assessing the mesne prohts. Admittedly, the suit propert5r, admeasuring 1744.42 sq.yds. is located in a prime locality of Nizamabad, abutting 80 feet main road of Nizamabad City and it is surrounded by hotel Vaishnavi', multi storied commercial complex and the flve star hotel constructed by State Tourism Department. Thus, as the AdvocateCommissioner has assessed the mesne prohts by considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the triat Court has rightly relied on the said report for assessing the mesne profits in respect of the suit property. However, this Court is of the view that the enhancement of rent on the rent assessed for the slab from 18.O2.1994 to 17.02.1997 atRs.25/per square yard at 2OVo by the trial Court based on the report of the Advocate-Commissioner is on higher side and ends of justice would be met if the rate of enhancement is reduced to 15%o for ttre subsequent each slab of three years while

¶71

8 MGP.J Ctu' t\kt. 3137 of 2014

¶72

maintaining the impugned order in all other resrpects. Thus, giving 15o enhancement for each slab of three years subsequent to the first slab from lg.O2.lgg4 to 7i,.O2.1992, |ne mesne profits can be calculated as under:_

¶73

(i) Rs.25l- per sq.yd. from 18.02.1994 to t7.C2.t992;

¶74

(ii) Rs.28.75 ps. per sq.yds. from 18.O2.1997 tc IZ .O2.2OOO;

¶75

(iii) Rs.33.06ps. per sq.yd. from 18.02.2OOO to 12.O2.20O3; & (iv) Rs.38.O1 ps. per sq.yd. from LB.O2.2OO3 to [.04.2OO5.

¶76

[n the result, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of by reducing the enhancement of rent for the subsequent each slab of three years subsequent to the hrst slab from 1g.02.1994 to 17.02.1997 frorn 2O%o to 15%o, as indicated above while maintaining the order in all other respects. With regard to the interest on the arrears, as there was no frnding by the trial Court in this regard, the arrears shall carry interost at 60/o per annum till its realization. No order as to costs.

¶77

Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶78

closed.

¶79

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSIS]TANT REGI RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

1 . The Senior Civil Judge Nizamabad 2. One CC to SRl. M. RAVINDRANATH REDDY, Advocale [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. T. V. KALYAN SINGH, Advocate [OPU(]I 4. Two CD Copies

DL NS

HIGH COURT

MGP,J

DATED:09/11/2023

ORDER