JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ld. Advocates Mr. Vivek Mapara for the petitioner and Mr. Nisarg Desai for Nanavati Associates for respondent no. 1, whereas Ms. G.R. Vijayalakshmi for the respondent no. 2. 2. Since the matter has been dragged at admission stage from the year 2010 till date, both the parties have agreed to dispose it of finally. Therefore, heard all the learned advocates at length. 3. RULE. Service of rule is waived by learned advocates Mr. Nisarg Desai for Nanavati Associates for the respondent no. 1 and Ms. Vijayalakshmi for the respondent no. 2. 4. The petitioner herein is plaintiff, whereas respondents are original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 403/4006 pending before the Civil Court, Jamnagar. The parties are referred in their capacity before the Civil Court. It is undisputed fact that the plaintiff is owner of the suit premises, whereas the defendant no. 1 is original tenant pursuant to leave and licence agreement in its favour, which has in turn handed over the possession of such rented premises to its employee – defendant no. 2. Therefore, basically there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 directly, but defendant no. 2 is holding the premises as employee of defendant no. 1 company, which has, pursuant to terms and conditions of services, permitted the defendant no. 2 to stay in the suit premises which is owned by the plaintiff. It is also undisputed fact that the rent of the premises is payable by the defendant no. 1 company to the landlady considering it as a service condition for defendant no. 2 to have residential accommodation during his service with the defendant no. 1 company. 5. Copy of leave and licence agreement is on record, which confirms that the defendant no. 1 has taken the possession of the suit premises for 12 months commencing from 1/3/2001 and that the defendant no. 1 has to pay in-all Rs.4,500/- per month towards usage charges i.e., rent plus service charges to the plaintiff. 6. It seems that thereafter, there was a dispute between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 regarding service conditions of the defendant no. 2, which resulted into end of the services of the defendant no. 2 with the defendant no. 1 company and thereby practically defendant no. 2 has to hand-over the vacant possession to the defendant no. 6. It seems that thereafter, there was a dispute between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 regarding service conditions of the defendant no. 2, which resulted into end of the services of the defendant no. 2 with the defendant no. 1 company and thereby practically defendant no. 2 has to hand-over the vacant possession to the defendant no. 1 and at the end of term of leave and licence agreement, defendant no. 1 has to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff being landlady. However, as emerging from the record and as submitted by the respondents – defendants, the defendant no. 2 has raised an industrial dispute so far as his service conditions are concerned and that issue had been dragged upto this Court and that pursuant to such legal proceedings, it seems that the defendant no. 2 has continued to occupy the suit premises. However, the fact remains that neither the defendant no. 1 nor the defendant no. 2 has paid the usage charges plus service charges i.e. rent to the plaintiff – landlady. 7. Therefore, the plaintiff has no option but to institute Regular Civil Suit No. 403/2006 before the Civil Court at Jamnagar for getting vacant possession of the rented premises, so also the mesne profit or rent [service charges plus usage charges] of the suit premises till defendants hand over the peaceful vacant possession to her. The suit was filed on 1/3/2006 wherein rent is claimed from 1/12/2001till 30/7/2005 as rent and thereafter from 1/8/2005 till filing of the suit as a mesne profit considering the fact that the plaintiff has served several notices to the defendants to pay such dues, but when the defendants have failed to pay rent, ultimately plaintiff has terminated the lease and tenancy and, therefore, from the date of notice of such termination being 5/8/2005, such amount is claimed as a mesne profit. 8. Therefore, the fact remains that the defendants are occupying the suit premises without paying any usage charges plus service charges i.e. rent or mesne profit since December 2001 till date. This is nothing but overreaching by the well to do companies upon the small property holders by getting their properties on lease and thereafter by not paying the rent or usage charges for all these 15 years. This is nothing but overreaching by the well to do companies upon the small property holders by getting their properties on lease and thereafter by not paying the rent or usage charges for all these 15 years. Considering such fact, the plaintiff has, as back as on 29/4/2006 i.e. after service of summons of the suit upon the defendants, filed an application before the trial Court at exh. 8 seeking direction against the defendants to pay arrears of rent and to continue to pay the rent till pendency of the suit. Such application has been endorsed by the advocate for the defendant no. 1 company that at first instance, the Court shall direct the plaintiff to disclose as to under which provision of law application is given, so that they can file reply with reference to such provision. Whereas defendant no. 2 has filed his reply on 29/4/2007 i.e. exactly after one year of filing of such application of one paragraph and therein also in one page reply, defendant no. 2 has simply pleaded that the application needs to be dismissed since it is not filed with bonafide and that the application is not maintainable against the defendant no. 2 since he is not the tenant of the plaintiff and, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to claim any rent from him since there is no rent agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2. However, it is also stated that the defendant no. 2 is not a party to the rent agreement i.e. lease deed between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 and, therefore, it is requested to reject such application. 9. Therefore, the fact remains that practically the defendant no. 1 has not filed any reply or objection to such application. Whereas the defendant no. 2 filed a small reply after a year and record shows that such application has been allowed thereafter, again almost after a year. By such order dated 13/2/2007 below application exh. 8, the trial Court has directed the defendant – tenant to pay to the landlady the arrears of rent or difference of arrears of rent within two months and to deposit rent periodically in the Court till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court passed such order under section 11[4] of the Rent Control Act. The defendants are also directed to pay taxes of local body. 10. The trial Court passed such order under section 11[4] of the Rent Control Act. The defendants are also directed to pay taxes of local body. 10. The trial Court has, while passing such order, recorded rival contentions and reproduced the provisions of section 11[4] of the Bombay Rent Act and observed that when the tenant is withholding the rent, the Court can pass an order to recover the rent. 11. The defendant no. 1 company has challenged such order before the District Court by filing Civil Revision Application No. 2/2008 wherein the Addl. District Judge has quashed and set aside order dated 13/2/2008 passed by the trial Court, while allowing the Revision Application vide judgment and order dated 29/12/2009. Such order is under challenge in the present petition. 12. Though the revisional Court – Addl. District Court has relied upon several judgments to arrive at a conclusion that once leave and licence agreement is terminated, then relationship of landlady and tenant has come to an end and thereafter, Rent Act is not applicable and thereby order under section 11[4] of the Rent Act cannot be passed by the trial Court, the fact remains that the plaintiff is a landlady and defendant no. 1 has entered into lease agreement and, therefore, unless defendant no. 1 hands over possession back to the landlady either at the end of the lease period or when lease has been terminated, it is liable to pay the agreed amount either as rent or as usage charges or even as mesne profit for continuing possession, since withholding the possession after end of the lease period or termination of the lease agreement would amount to trespass and illegal possession and, therefore, also such defendant is liable to pay mesne profit. When such situation is arising at the end of lease agreement wherein monthly usage charges are already fixed as rent, then a wrong doer, who continues in the possession, which is now certainly illegal, as a trespasser, has no right to plead and say that now since lease agreement has been terminated, the Court cannot direct him to pay the amount either as rent or as mesne profit which is in arrears and that the plaintiff may file a recovery suit of such amount with the suit for possession and if she succeeds, then and then she can claim such amount. 13. 13. In the present case, the defendant no. 1, in addition to such stand, came with a different submission that the plaintiff is aware about the situation and in fact the plaintiff has agreed to continue the possession of defendant no. 2 even after termination of lease agreement and, therefore, now company is not supposed to pay the arrears or rent – mesne profit. So far as any such document is concerned, the plaintiff has categorically denied the existence of such document and pleaded that the plaintiff has never entered into any such agreement to continue the defendant no. 2 as a tenant and that if at all any such document is created by the defendant no. 1, then it is certainly by misrepresentation and without the knowledge of the original plaintiff, who now expired pending lease and whose heir is joined as plaintiff. In any case, it would be subject matter of actual evidence before the Court and its appreciation by judicial authority. But prima-facie it becomes clear that either the defendant no. 1 or the defendant no. 2 has to pay the arrears of rent [usage charges or mesne profit] to the landlady, more particularly when it is a meagre amount of Rs.4,500/- per month for a Limited Company like the defendant no. 1. If at all the defendant no. 1 is of the opinion that they are not supposed to pay such rent since it is not payable by them for the occupancy of defendant no.2, whose services are terminated, the fact remains that the service dispute between the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 is pending before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6290/2005. Though such second petition is under the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned advocates for the petitioner has relied upon at-least one of the orders passed in such Special Civil Application No. 6290/2005 being dated 24/2/2015, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court [Coram : Jayant Patel, J.] has passed the following order : “1. This matter was yesterday adjourned on account of the request made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides to work-out settlement, if any. However, at 4.45 p.m., respondent – Mr. N.D. Jagdishwara objected to the adjournment and at his request the matter was kept today. 2. Today in the first sitting on the aspect of settlement, he was unable to quantify the amount. However, at 4.45 p.m., respondent – Mr. N.D. Jagdishwara objected to the adjournment and at his request the matter was kept today. 2. Today in the first sitting on the aspect of settlement, he was unable to quantify the amount. However, he had made grievance that on the one hand he has not been paid the difference of salary and the monetary benefits as per the award and on the other hand, the security staff of the company is making attempt to evict his family from the present arrangement of accommodation and he has no means of survival. Therefore, the matter was kept in the second sitting. 3. In the second sitting, Mr. Jagdishwara states that he has not undertaken any calculation of the amount available to him as per the award. 4. Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner agrees to undertakes the exercise for calculation of the amount, including retiral benefits, as may be available to the respondent and the said calculation shall be placed on the next date. Mr. Gandhi further states that the respondent and his family will not be evicted from the present arrangement of accommodation until the matter is finally decided. 5. The petitioner is directed to abide by the submissions made before this Court. S.O. to 5.3.2015. The matter to be placed before the Regular Bench taking up the labour matters.” 14. The bare perusal of above order makes it clear that talk of settlement was going on between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 so far as dispute amongst them regarding service conditions of defendant no. 2 is concerned and it seems that practically the defendant no. 1 company has agreed to pay some amount to the defendant no. 2. Thereby, prima-facie the defendant no. 2 has some right or lien against the defendant no. 1 company. However, such observation is only with a view to decide the application, since the Court is not dealing with the dispute between the defendant no. 1 and 2. What is more material and concerned is paragraphs 4 and 5 of such order, wherein the defendant no. 1 has agreed to disclose the calculation of the amount that is to be paid to the defendant no. 1 and crucial admission by the defendant no. 1 company herein before the Coordinate Bench is in following line :- “… Mr. What is more material and concerned is paragraphs 4 and 5 of such order, wherein the defendant no. 1 has agreed to disclose the calculation of the amount that is to be paid to the defendant no. 1 and crucial admission by the defendant no. 1 company herein before the Coordinate Bench is in following line :- “… Mr. Gandhi further states that the respondent and his family will not be evicted from the present arrangement of accommodation until the matter is finally decided.” It is undisputed fact that Mr. Gandhi is appearing for Nanavati Associates for the defendant no. 1 company M/s. Essar Project Ltd., in both the petitions. Therefore, practically there is admission and confirmation by the defendant no. 1 company that they will continue the possession of defendant no. 2 till disposal of such Special Civil Application No. 6290/2005. Thereby they become tenants and occupation of defendant no. 2 is permitted by them. In view of such fact, they are certainly liable to pay the agreed rent and/or mesne profit. 15. The direction by the Coordinate Bench in para 5 of such order dated 24/2/2015 makes the position more clear that the defendant no. 1 is directed to abide by above statement made before the Court. 16. In view of above facts and circumstances, now it does not permit the defendant no. 1 to plead and submit that possession is handed over to the landlady in view of agreement and that there is no relationship of landlady and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and, therefore, now they are not supposed to pay the rent or mesne profit as per the order by the trial Court. 17. Even after such situation emerging from the evidence on factual details from the record and more particularly even after their own statement before the Coordinate Bench and direction by the Coordinate Bench not to disturb the possession of the defendant no. 2 and to continue with the present arrangement of accommodation of the defendant no. 2 in the suit premises by the defendant no. 1 company, much is argued before this Court on all counts viz. facts, maintainability of the suit as well as consideration of tenant in given situation. However, the factual aspect, which is discussed hereinabove and more particularly admission by the defendant no. 2 in the suit premises by the defendant no. 1 company, much is argued before this Court on all counts viz. facts, maintainability of the suit as well as consideration of tenant in given situation. However, the factual aspect, which is discussed hereinabove and more particularly admission by the defendant no. 1 before the Coordinate Bench to continue the present arrangement of accommodation of defendant no. 2 in the suit premises, leaves no doubt that the revisional Court has committed an error in setting aside the impugned judgment. 18. Though the defendant no. 1 has argued at length, I am restricting myself by discussing the relevant issues only, which are material to decide this petition at this stage considering the fact that the suit is yet to be decided on its own merits and, therefore, discussion and determination on any issue in detail would otherwise prejudice the trial and rights of either of the parties. 19. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, equity certainly tilts in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and this petition needs to be allowed. It cannot be ignored that during pendency of this petition the original landlady has expired and her heir is brought on record. If the heir is not joined as such before the trial Court because of pendency of this petition, now he may file appropriate application for the purpose. The trial Court shall decide such application in accordance with law, but considering the fact that the matter has been unnecessarily dragged from the year 2010 to 2015 before this Court and, therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled to benefit of Article 14 of the Limitation Act. 20. In the result, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. Thereby impugned judgment and order dated 29/12/2009 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 2/2008 by the Addl. District Judge, Jamnagar, is quashed and set aside, which results into restoration of order dated 13/2/2008 passed below application exh.8 in Regular Civil Suit No. 403/2006. The defendant no. 1 is directed to deposit the amount of arrears till date, within eight weeks from today. 21. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute.