TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Defendant No. 1 for a period of nine years, vide registered lease deed dated 02.05.1989. The lease commenced from 01.05.1989 and expired on 30.04.1998. The initial agreed rent stipulated in the lease deed was Rs. 60,000/- per month which was to be increased by 15% after every three years. On account of the aforesaid increase, the agreed rent was Rs. 79,350/- per month when the lease expired by afflux of time on 30.04.1998. In the suit, the Plaintiffs had claimed a sum of Rs. 28,56,600/- towards arrears of rent for the period from 01.05.1995 to 30.04.1998 Rs. 7,52,168/- towards interest on arrears of rent, calculated at the rate of 18% per month and Rs. 6,55,000/- towards damages for use and occupation for the period from 01.05.1998 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest in case the rent was not paid in time. No usage or custom with respect to payment of interest has been pleaded or proved. Admittedly, no notice of the nature envisaged in Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978 was given by the Plaintiffs to Defendant No. 1 at any point of time. Hence, interest cannot be awarded to the Plaintiffs under the provisions of Interest Act, 1978. I, therefore, hold that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest on the arrears of rent. 6. Issue No. 2: Since the lease admittedly expired by afflux of time on 30.04.1998, Defendant No. 1 became liable to pay damages for use and occupation for the period from 01.05.1998 to 31.10.1998. Defendant No. 1 is liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The only suggestion given to him in this regard was that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to claim use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 6.5 lakhs per month. This suggestion is altogether different from suggesting that the market rent of similar premises in Vasant Vihar at the relevant time was not Rs. 6.5 lakhs per month. In fact, if the case of Defendant No. 1 was that the market rent of similarly situated premises was less than Rs. 6.5 lakhs per month, it ought to have suggested to the witness what according to it the prevailing market rent was at the relevant time. That, however, was not done. If a witness deposes a particular fact and no suggestion to the contrary is given to him in his cross-examination, the party against wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim of the Plaintiffs with respect to the market rent of similar properties at the relevant time. In the absence of any evidence at all from Defendant No. 1 in this regard, the otherwise unchallenged testimony of Mr. Surinder Aggarwal with respect to the rent prevailing in the market at the relevant time remains absolutely unrebutted. I see no reason to reject the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Surinder Aggarwal in this regard and consequently, hold that had the suit premises been let out, it would have fetched rent of Rs. 6,50,000/-p.m. during the period from 01.05.1998 to 31.10.1998. 7. The amount payable to the Plaintiffs towards damages for use and occupation for the period from 01.05.1998 to 31.10.1998 after giving benefit of the pa....