Bombay High Court

SMT. CHANDADEVI CHOUDHARYversusM/S. STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M M SATHAYE

Holding

The revision applications succeed; mesne profits are to be awarded at Rs 150 per sq ft per month with 6% interest, and the earlier Small Causes Court orders are set aside.

Summary

The High Court considered a group of civil revision applications filed by several landlords against State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC) seeking higher mesne profits for premises on the 6th floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point. The trial court had awarded Rs 12 per sq ft per month, which the appellants argued was inconsistent with earlier judgments awarding higher rates. The Court examined the applicability of Clause 15 of the lease agreements, Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the definition of mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC. Relying on its earlier decisions in STC v. Ravinder Singh Indersingh Sehgal and STC v. Neelam Choudhary, the Court held that the Rs 12 rate was not a ceiling and that a uniform rate of Rs 150 per sq ft per month with 6% interest was appropriate. Consequently, the Court set aside the Small Causes Court orders and allowed the revision applications, granting the higher mesne profit. A request for a stay of the order was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the mesne profit rate of Rs 12 per sq ft per month stipulated in Clause 15 is a ceiling or can be enhanced.
Whether Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, bars the claim for mesne profits in lieu of specific performance.
Whether differing mesne profit rates awarded in similar cases violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
What rate of mesne profit and interest should be awarded for the premises in question.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XX Rule 12
Constitution of India — s. Article 14
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s. 23

Subjects

mesne profit
lease
Specific Relief Act
CPC Order XX Rule 12
Clause 15
Article 14
revision
Small Causes Court
interest rate
landlord

Judgment

1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by
HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF
Date:
2026.01.17
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 886 OF 2014
18:50:41 +0530
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11601 OF 2025
Smt. Chandadevi Choudhary ....Applicant
V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 987 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11625 OF 2025
Vijay Shankar Bajoria (since Deceased)
through
1a. Mrs. Shashi Prabha Bajoria
1b. Mr. Abhishek Bajoria
1c. Mr. Abhiram Bajoria
1d. Mrs. Mala Patodia ....Applicants
V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 989 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11597 OF 2025

Smt. Krishna Devi Harlalka (since Deceased)
Trough Mr. Ashish Haralalka ....Applicant
V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1010 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11599 OF 2025

Ashish Haralalka ....Applicant

Husen 1
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 984 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11621 OF 2025

1. Binod Kumar Shroff S/o Late Madanlal Shroff
2. Smt. Kusum Devi Shroff w/o Binod Kumar Shroff ....Applicants
V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 986 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11624 OF 2025

Smt. Lalita Devi Jajodia ....Applicant
V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 990 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11600 OF 2025

Smt. Shashi Prabha Bajoria ....Applicant
V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 988 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11622 OF 2025

M/s. Annapurna Properties, Kanpur ....Applicant
V/s
M/s. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai ....Respondent

Husen 2
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

****
Mr. Nusrat Shah a/w Mr. Kevin Gala, Ms. Archana Jha, Ms. Sayali
Ramugade i/b Ms. Samaa Shah for Applicants in CRA/989/2014 and
CRA/1010/2014.
Ms. Shubhra Swami a/w Mr. Aryan Kotwal i/b Mr. Akshay Naik for
Applicants in CRA/984/2014.
Mr. Ashish Venugopal, Mr. Aryan Kotwal i/b. Mr. Pramod Kathane for
the Applicants in CRA/886/2014, CRA/986/2014.
Mr. D. G. Dhanure a/w Ms. Apurva Gudewar for Respondent-STC in
all CRAs and for Applicants in IAs take out by STC.
Mrs. Sindhu Kotian a/w. Mr. Venkat Rao a/w. Mrs. Ashwini Waghre i/b.
Mr. Akash Gaonkar for Applicants in CRA Nos.987, 990 & 988 of 2014.
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for Applicants and learned counsel for
Respondent-State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd. (‘STC’ for short).

2. Revision Applicant in CRA/886/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.5 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 609 admeasuring about 347 sq.
ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 536 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under
impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

3. Revision Applicant in CRA/987/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.4 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 608 admeasuring about 1000 sq.

Husen 3
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 537 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under
impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

4. Revision Applicant in CRA/989/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.9 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 605 admeasuring about 500 sq.
ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 542 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under
impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

5. Revision Applicant in CRA/1010/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.3 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 606 admeasuring about 500 sq.
ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 535 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under

Husen 4
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

6. Revision Applicant in CRA/986/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.2 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 611 admeasuring about 347 sq.
ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 540 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under
impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

7. Revision Applicant in CRA/984/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.6 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 604 admeasuring about 500 sq.
ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 541 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under
impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

8. Revision Applicant in CRA/990/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.8 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 602 admeasuring about 1000 sq.
ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai

Husen 5
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 538 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under
impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

9. Revision Applicant in CRA/988/2014 filed Mesne Profit
Application No.7 of 2005 against the Respondent for recovery of the
mesne profit in respect of office No. 603 admeasuring about 1000 sq.
ft. on sixth floor of Maker Chamber No. IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400 021. The said application was allowed directing the Respondent
to pay mesne profits @ 12/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002
till actual delivery of possession alongwith interest. Revision
Applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 539 of 2009 before the Appellate
Bench of Small Causes Court, which appeal was dismissed under
impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2014.

10. The issue involved in this group of civil revision applications is
already considered in detail and a judgment is rendered by this
Court in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Singh
Indersingh Sehgal (CRA/308/2011 decided on 28.11.2025). It is
admitted position that the present Applicants are landlords/lessors
who are identically placed vis-a-vis the Respondent STC, governed by
the same Clause 15 of agreement between parties, which is already
interpreted in the said judgment. It is also admitted position that suit
premises involved in this group of matters are situated on the same
6th Floor, Maker Chamber No.IV., Nariman Point, Mumbai.

Husen 6
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

11. Learned counsel for the Applicants have relied upon the above
judgment of STC Vs. Ravinder Singh (supra) and STC Vs. Neelam
Choudhary (CRA/111/2019 decided on 16.10.2024) rendered by
another Single Judge of this Court, claiming enhancement of mesne
profits which is presently granted by the Trial Court @ Rs. 12/- per
sq. ft. per month from 01.01.2002 till delivery of actual possession,
which rate has been maintained by the Appeal Court.

12. Learned counsel for the Applicant in CRA/989/2014 and
CRA/1010/2014 has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Krapa Rangiah Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition [(1982) 2 SCC 374] to contend that if higher rate is
awarded by this Court in subsequent claim for adjourning land, the
area being comparable and similarly situated, the rate must be same
as that awarded in subsequent decision.

13. Mr. Dhanure, learned counsel for STC submitted that in view of
Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the liquidation of damages
is not a bar to specific performance and as such, the revision
Applicants/landlords should have filed suit for specific performance
of Clause 15 of the agreement between parties. He refers to the
impugned judgment by the Appeal-Court making reference to Section
23 of said Act. He further submits that under STC Vs. Neelam
Choudhary (supra) and STC Vs. Ravinder Singh (supra), different
rates are awarded by this Court, in as much as they are ranging
between Rs.90/- to Rs.250/- per sq. ft. per month which amounts to
violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since the
premises are situated on the same floor.

Husen 7
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

14. The argument about Section 23 of Specific Relief Act is not
only erroneous but misconceived, in as much as the Revision
Applicants have filed applications for mesne profits. It is their
contention that they must be awarded mesne profits as provided
under Section 2(12) read with Order XX, Rule 12 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short) . Mesne profits are defined
under Section 2(12) of the CPC to mean those profits which the
person in wrongful possession actually received, or might with
ordinary diligence have been received therefrom with interest on
such profits. It is absurd to expect parties like Revision Applicants to
file suit for specific performance of Clause 15, which itself limits the
grant of compensation of Rs.12/- per sq. ft. per month.

15. So far as interpretation of the Clause 15 is concerned, this
Court in STC Vs. Ravinder Singh (supra) and another single Judge of
this Court in STC Vs. Neelam Choudhary (supra) has already
interpreted the said clause and concluded that the rate of Rs.12/- per
sq. ft. per month stated therein cannot be taken as upper limit for
claim of mesne profits, which is subject matter of present revision
applications.

16. In that view of the matter, in my view, Section 23 of the said
Act will have no bearing on the issue at hand. Admittedly, present
proceedings are not arising out from suit for specific performance and
they are arising out of inquiry for mesne profit. Therefore, the
argument of STC based on Section 23 of Specific Relief Act is
rejected.

Husen 8
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

17. So far as argument about different rates being awarded and
violation of article 14 is concerned, it is rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the Applicant in CRA/886/2014 &
CRA/986/2014 that the rate of Rs. 90/- per sq.ft. per month in the
case of Ravinder Singh (Supra) was retained by this Court because
only STC had challenged the impugned order and Ravinder Singh did
not file revision application. In this respect, it is material to note that
another case between STC Vs. Godavaridevi, which was considered in
the same judgment and since Godavaridevi had filed revision
application, it was allowed granting parity in rates and Rs.150/- has
been awarded.

18. In CRA 989/2014 and CRA/1010/2014, possession was
handed over by STC to respective Applicant/s on 25.04.2011. In rest
of the matters, possession was handed over by STC to respective
Applicant/s on 01.03.2011. Therefore, the period for which mesne
profits are awarded is from 01.01.2002 till 01.03.2011 or 25.4.2011.
This Court in the judgment of STC Vs. Ravinder Singh (supra) has
considered the period from 01.10.2003 to 31.10.2010 which is a little
shorter period than the present group of petitions. In STC Vs.
Neelam Choudhary (supra), another learned Single Judge of this
Court has granted Rs.150/- per sq. ft. per for a period between
September 2003 to December 2007 and Rs.250/- per sq. ft. per from
January 2008 till August 2012.

19. Considering that the period considered by this Court in STC Vs.
Ravinder Singh (supra) is covering most part of the present duration
under question, in my view, granting Rs.150/- per sq. ft. per month

Husen 9
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

and maintaining interest @6% p.a. in the present cases, would
maintain judicial discipline as well as consistency with the view taken
by this very same Court.

20. In that view of the matter, it is necessary to interfere in the
impugned judgment to the extent of bringing the rate of mesne
profits and interest at par with STC Vs. Ravinder Singh (supra)
delivered by me.

21. The above revision applications therefore succeed to that
extent. The impugned orders dated 07.05.2014 passed in Misc.
Appeal No.537/2009, Misc. Appeal No.535/2009, Misc. Appeal
No.536/2009, Misc. Appeal No.541/2009, Misc. Appeal
No.540/2009, Misc. Appeal No.538/2009 & Misc. Appeal
No.539/2009 and Misc. Appeal No.542/2009 by the Appellate Bench
of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai are set aside. The said Misc.
Appeals are allowed and the Revision Applicants are held entitled to
mesne profits from Respondent-STC @ Rs.150/- per sq. ft. per
month from 01.01.2002 till 01.03.2011 or 25.04.2011 as may be
applicable, alongwith interest @ 6% from 01.01.2002 till 01.03.2011
or 25.04.2011 as may be applicable.

22. In view of disposal of revision applications, pending interim
applications are also disposed of in above terms.

23. At this stage, learned counsel for STC prayed for stay of this
order for a period of 6 weeks. Learned counsel appearing for all the
Revision-Applicants strongly opposed it, submitting that if stay is to
be granted at this stage, then STC must be directed to deposit the

Husen 10
1-CRA-886-2014 STC Group C2.doc

amount in this Court. Mr. Dhanure fairly submitted that STC is not in
a position to deposit the amount in the Court. In that view of the
matter and considering the facts and circumstances involved in the
present litigation and further considering that the decree of eviction
has attained finality long ago, request for stay to this order is
rejected.

24. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Husen 11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…