JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. Matter has come upon application filed by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 5 claiming mesne profit during pendency of the Civil Second Appeal. 2. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that there is concurrent finding by both the Courts below in favour of the respondents. However, this Court was satisfied and framed substantial question of law at the stage of admission with interim order passed in favour of the appellant. 3. Counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of the court that tenancy relates back to the year 1976 and almost 40 years have passed by now and only a meager amount of just Rs.187.50/- per month is being received in the form of rent whereas the shop is situated in the main Commercial Sarafa Market of Bharatpur which is considered to be the most prominent commercial Market of Bharatpur and the area of the shop in question is about 15 feet x 46 feet (690 Sq. Feet). Counsel also brought to the notice that in adjacent shop having a common boundary wall, the Apex Court in the case of the same appellant granted fixed compensation for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of judgment passed by the High Court where the size of the shop is for 4½ ft. x 24 feet (110.4 Sq. Feet) & in the instant case the area in question is almost six times, therefore, on the same basis fair rent could be around Rs.60,000/- per month. Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that they have also provided the DLC value, in August, 2015 & the District Collector, Bharatpur fixed a rate of Rs.19,670/- per Sq. Ft. of the shop in question and counsel has worked out fair market value of the disputed shop to be around Rs.1.5 Crores and prays that mesne profit be granted in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court for the adjacent shop. 4. Per-contra, ld. Ft. of the shop in question and counsel has worked out fair market value of the disputed shop to be around Rs.1.5 Crores and prays that mesne profit be granted in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court for the adjacent shop. 4. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the Apex Court on which the counsel has placed reliance was passed in a different context and facts and therefore has no application in the facts of the instant case & cannot be considered to be a binding precedent as the facts of the present case are distinguishable and were not available for consideration before the Apex Court. Counsel also contended that there is no other evidence led by the respondent to bring home that the rental could be such an abnormal and exorbitant amount of Rs.60,000/- per month rather appellant has placed on record the certain rent receipts of nearby situated shops where the rental being paid by other tenants is less than Rs.1,000/- per month and therefore, that is the fair market value and objected to grant of any amount over and above Rs.1,000/- per month. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 & Air India Cabin Crew Association and Others v. Union of India and Others. (2012) 1 SCC 619 . 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. In my view, once the Apex Court has fixed a rental of Rs.10,000/- per month of a similarly situated adjacent shop where the rent is fixed Rs.10,000/- per month and by fixing the said rent or mesne profit or compensation for use and occupation of the premises, taking into consideration the submissions of both the counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent is certainly required to be taken note of. Therefore to say that it is not a binding precedent, in my view, is not correct on behalf of the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. The other factor which has already been brought on record about the DLC value fixed by the District Collector, Bharatpur as noticed earlier, is about Rs.19,670/- per Sq. Ft. Therefore to say that it is not a binding precedent, in my view, is not correct on behalf of the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. The other factor which has already been brought on record about the DLC value fixed by the District Collector, Bharatpur as noticed earlier, is about Rs.19,670/- per Sq. Ft. in August, 2015 which in my view, can also be one of the major factor to determine the fair market value of the shop in question, taking into consideration the fair market value of the various areas. It is not disputed that the shop in question is situated in one of the most commercial market situated in Sarafa Market, Bharatpur and the tenancy is almost about 40 years old and indeed such a rent of Rs.187.50/- cannot continue to remain after having succeeded with long litigation by the respondent. 7. Taking into consideration the overall view including the finding of the Apex Court in regard to the adjacent shop with an area much smaller in size considered by the Apex court whereas the area of the premises under consideration is substantially higher. In my view, it would be appropriate to fix mesne profit at Rs.22,000/- per month payable by the appellant on month to month basis by 7th day of succeeding month in the Bank Account No.08380100006348 (Bank of Baroda, Branch New Mandi, Bharatpur) of the respondent and the same shall be allowed to the respondent from the date of application filed under Order 41, Rule 5 dated 24.05.2016 onwards. 8. Taking into consideration the above, the arrears shall be paid within a period of 4 months in the Bank Account No. 08380100006348 (Bank of Baroda, Branch New Mandi, Bharatpur) of the respondent. In case, the appellant commits default, in defaulting to pay arrears and monthly rent as aforesaid, the respondent shall be at liberty to execute the decree and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law without further reference to this Court or lower Courts. 9. With these observations/directions, the miscellaneous application relating to mesne profit stands disposed off.