Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2318 (ALL)

Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Chaman Lal Bajaj

2014-08-04

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Shashi Kant Gupta,J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.C.C. Case No. 21 of 2009 (Chaman Lal Bajaj Vs. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma), whereby the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment has been decreed against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma. 2. After exchange of pleadings between the parties as many as seven issues were framed. The Court below after hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of the revisionist whereby the petitioner was interalia directed to deposit Rs.30,000/- per month as damages for using the premises during the pendency of the suit to the date of vacation of the premises. It is pertinent to mention here that the premises has already been vacated by the revisionist. 3. By order dated 02.05.2014, this Court had passed the following order: . "The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is in respect of the fact that the defence of the revisionist was struck off, he was entitled to cross examine the witnesses and participate in the proceedings. He further submits that the court below had granted mesne profit at highly excessive rate at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month.. Matter needs consideration. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has filed counter affidavit to the supplementary affidavit. Learned Counsel for the revisionist may file the reply on or before the next date.. Learned Counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist has already vacated the premises on 04.12.2013. The effect and operation of the judgment and order dated 20.07.2012 in respect of the mesne profit shall remain stayed provided the revisionist deposits the mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- till the date of his possession within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. List this case for final disposal in the week commencing 04 August 2014." 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that landlord tenant relationship existed between the parties and he was not the licencee. He further submitted that the Court below has granted mesne profit at highly excessive rate at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month without assigning any reason, whereas the rate of rent including fixtures was Rs. 13,000/- per month. 5. He further submitted that the Court below has granted mesne profit at highly excessive rate at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month without assigning any reason, whereas the rate of rent including fixtures was Rs. 13,000/- per month. 5. From the perusal of order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Court below, it appears that the Court below while deciding the Issue No. 7 has not assigned any reason worth the name while awarding Rs. 30,000/- per month towards the mesne profit. It appears that Court below has computed mesne profit in a very casual and superficial manner. 6. Normally, the matter should have been remanded to the Trial Court by this Court for computing the mesne profit afresh but in view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to fix the amount of mesne profit to avoid any hardship and further delay in the matter. 7. The rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.3000/- for fixtures was fixed in the year 2005 and the tenancy was terminated in the year 2009. It can not be denied that the disputed premises is located in a prime locality and the value of the property in disputed must have been increased many times during this period and consequently the premises in dispute would not fetch less than Rs. 17,000/- per month as mesne profit. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Court below is modified only to the extent that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 17000/- per month towards mesne profit instead of Rs.30,000/- from the date of filing the suit up to the date of actual ejectment from the premises. 9. It is made clear that the rate of mesne profit (Rs.17,000/- per month) has been fixed with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. I do not find any other illegallity or infirmity in the impugned order. The Court below has given cogent and convincing reasons, therefore, other findings recorded by the Trial Court on other issues are upheld. 11. With this observation the revision stands partly allowed.