The Supreme Court has issued notice in a special leave petition filed by Rajiv Sarin against the Directorate of Estates and others, in a long-running dispute concerning alleged unlawful occupation of commercial property in New Delhi. The matter traces back to the Emergency era, when the petitioner’s father, late H.K. Sarin, was detained under COFEPOSA, leading to forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA and loss of the family’s property.
Although the Delhi High Court had set aside the forfeiture proceedings in 2014 for lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner alleges that possession of the property continued to be withheld by authorities for several years thereafter, resulting in prolonged deprivation of rental income.
Before a Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, the case raises an important question of law regarding the applicability of Article 51 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner contends that claims for damages based on market rate for unauthorized occupation cannot be equated with mesne profits strictly defined as actual gains derived by the occupant, and therefore should not be restricted by the limitation period applicable to mesne profits.
It was argued that the respondent-tenant did not generate actual profits from the premises and that the Delhi High Court erred in limiting the award of mesne profits to a specific period between 2016 and 2020. Taking note of the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter, returnable within eight weeks, and permitted service through multiple modes.
The case is likely to have wider implications on how courts interpret limitation in claims for compensation arising from unauthorized occupation of property.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Adv.; Mr. Om Batra, Adv.; Ms. Lahar Jain, Adv.; Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Ilam Paridi, AOR
