Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 230 (RAJ)

Udai Lal v. Rajesh Kumar

2016-02-10

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the respondent-recovery certificate holder has been accepted and the objection filed by the petitioner regarding payment of rent in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') has been rejected. 2. The respondent filed petition for eviction against the petitioner which came to be accepted by Rent Tribunal on 16.07.2009, the Tribunal directed revision of rent @ Rs.902/- per month w.e.f. 07.02.2004 and ordered for 5% increase per year and ordered for eviction. The appellate Rent Tribunal upheld the decree of eviction, however, remanded the matter to a limited extent to re-determine the revised rent and pursuant thereto the rent was determined as Rs.1352.25P. 3. Where after the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal were challenged by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9769/2013, which came to be decided by order dated 29.10.2013, whereby petitioner was granted time till 30.05.2014 to vacate the premises and to pay the mesne profit at Rs.1,000/- per month w.e.f. October, 2013. 4. In Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was granted further six months' time. 5. Where after the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the Act before the Rent Tribunal seeking recovery of arrears of rent in terms of Section 20(3) of the Act. The application was resisted by the petitioner, inter alia, contending that the application was not maintainable, as the petitioner has already handed over the vacant possession of the suit property and unless proceedings are initiated under Section 20(1) the order under Section 20(3) of the Act cannot be passed. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected objection of the petitioner and ordered for payment in terms of Section 20(3) of the Act. 7. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected objection of the petitioner and ordered for payment in terms of Section 20(3) of the Act. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal committed error in dismissing the objections of the petitioner, inasmuch as, if he is required to pay the rent/mesne profit under Section 20(3) of the Act, the petitioner would be required to make payment of about Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas this Court ordered for payment of mesne profit @ Rs.1,000/- only; the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act can only be applied, in case the composite execution for eviction and arrears under Section 20(1) is initiated. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that recovery certificate was ordered to be issued by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. 10. The order passed by the Tribunal, was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and against which the writ petition was dismissed, while dismissing the writ petition the petitioner was granted extra time to vacate the premises and it was specifically provided that w.e.f. October, 2013 the petitioner would pay mesne profit @ Rs.1,000/- per month. 11. Provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act reads as under:- "Section 20(3) - If the tenant does not vacate the premises within three months of the date of issue of certificate for recovery of the possession, he shall be liable, from the date of issue of certificate, for recovery of possession to pay mesne profits at the rate of 2 times the rent in case of premises let out for residential purposes, at the rate of 3 times the rent, in case of premises let out for commercial purposes and at the rate of 3 times the rent in case certificate for recovery of immediate possession has been issued under section 16. Explanation:- Filing of an appeal or other proceeding against the order of issue of certificate for recovery of possession or immediate possession will not save the tenant from his liability to pay mesne profits, at the rates specified under sub-section (3), unless specifically ordered otherwise by the Appellate Rent Tribunal or the Court before which such an order is under challenge and if the order of issue of recovery certificate is finally maintained, the tenant shall be liable to pay mesne profits at the rates specified under sub-section (3) from the date on which the recovery certificate was initially issued." 12. A perusal of the scheme of Section 20(3) of the Act would reveal that the provision pertains to execution of orders and it cannot be said that the application would lie only for composite purposes for possession as well as arrears of rent qua the orders passed by the Tribunal. 13. Section 20(3) clearly provides that if the tenant does not vacate the commercial premises within three months to the date of issue of certificate, he shall be liable to pay mesne profit at three times the rent. The explanation further clarifies the position that filing of an appeal or other proceedings against the order of issue of certificate for recovery will not save the tenant from his liability to pay mesne profit. 14. Admittedly, this Court while dismissing the writ petition has not passed any order in variance of Section 20(3) of the Act and the order specifically provides for payment of mesne profit @ of Rs.1,000/- per month w.e.f. October, 2013 and, therefore, till September, 2013 the petitioner is liable under the provisions of Section 20(3). 15. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner would be required to pay higher rent for the period prior to the directions issued by this Court, has to be read in the context of the explanation to Section 20 of the Act and the same by itself cannot be a reason to question the validity of payment required to be made under Section 20(3) of the Act. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in this writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.