ORDER : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. The matter has come up on interim application No.4333 dated 17th February, 2014 filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Section 151 read with Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC for grant of mesne profits. 2. The co-ordinate Bench on 3rd September, 2012 while admitting the appeal passed the following order on the stay application:- "Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the operation and execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.5.12 passed by the appellate is stayed till the pendency of he appeal, on the condition that the appellant shall deposit/pay the rent/mesne profits regularly every month. The hearing of appeal is directed to be expedited." 3. Now, the respondents-applicants have filed the present application under Section 151 read with Order 41, Rule 5 CPC claiming rupees one lac per month as mesne profit and to direct the appellant to make payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.33,250/- for the period between May, 2001 and May, 2012 along with the interest @ 12% per annum. 4. It is submitted by Shri Kasliwal, Sr. Advocate appearing for the applicant plaintiff-respondent that the shop in question is situated in the heart of Jaipur City ad-measuring 17' x 25' = 425 sq. feet. The shop of almost same size situated in the vicinity was let out for Rs.1,00,000/- per month in January 2008 along with increase of rent @ 5% per annum. Likewise another shop was let out for Rs. 25,000/- per month in May, 2010 with increase of rent @ 15% after three years. Another shop was let out in July 2010 for Rs.22,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2010 for three years and for Rs.28,750/- per month w.e.f. 1.7.2013 In support of this, respondents-applicants has placed on record lease deed dated 27th December, 2007, lease deed dated 28.4.2010 and lease deed dated 8th June, 2010 (Annexures-A,B & C respectively). Learned counsel further submits that as per the valuation report dated 16th August, 2011 prepared by a Registered Valuer Mr. Sanjay Gupta with regard to the disputed shop the present market value of the shop is Rs.74,22,000/- and the fair rental value of the same is Rs.55,700/- per month. The valuation report is placed on record as (Annexure-D). 5. Learned counsel further submits that as per the valuation report dated 16th August, 2011 prepared by a Registered Valuer Mr. Sanjay Gupta with regard to the disputed shop the present market value of the shop is Rs.74,22,000/- and the fair rental value of the same is Rs.55,700/- per month. The valuation report is placed on record as (Annexure-D). 5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid documents, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the fare rent of the suit shop is approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month whereas the applicants are receiving rent of the suit shop only @ Rs.250/- per month and, therefore, the applicants are entitled to receive mesne profit of the suit shop @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 6. So far as arrears of rent is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants that despite orders having been passed by the learned lower appellate court the defendant appellant without there being any good reason has failed to pay the rent for the period between May, 2001 and May, 2012 which comes to Rs.33,250/- which also the plaintiff-applicants are entitled to receive with interest @ 12% per annum. 7. It is also submitted that both the courts below have passed the decree of eviction against the defendant appellant and, therefore, the appellant is in wrongful possession of the property in dispute. The respondents-applicants are entitled to get the mesne profit at the prevailing market rate in the area. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the plaintiffs respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Atma Ram Properties(P) Ltd. v. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 105. 8. The defendant-appellant has filed a reply to the application disputing the factual aspect of the matter. It is disputed that the fare rent of the suit shop is Rs.1,00,000/- as the tenant of shops situated in same vicinity i.e. Chaura Rasta, Nos.348 and 349 has been paying rent @ Rs.3000/- per month and the tenant of shop No.95 situated in Chaura Rasta has been paying rent @ Rs.2382/-. Rent receipts of these shops have been placed on record as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively. Rent receipts of these shops have been placed on record as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively. Regarding the valuation report of the suit shop it is submitted that the report has been obtained after making heavy payment to the valuer and no reliance can be placed on the same. 9. Shri BL Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellant submitted that if at all the fair rent is to be increased the same should not be more than Rs.25000/- per month which is the lowest rent of the instances given by the respondent. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it transpires that a decree of eviction was passed by the trial court and the same was confirmed by the first appellate court. By filing the application for grant of stay of the impugned judgments and decrees, the equitable discretionary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. In Atma Ram Properties (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that while ordering stay, the appellate court is justified in putting the appellant tenant on terms and direct him to compensate the landlord by payment of a reasonable amount as mesne profit. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has summed up the conclusions as under:- "(1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be reasonable; (2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the definition of tenant contained in clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction. With effect from that date, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree; (3) the doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date." 11. In Datu mal & others v. Seth Madan Gopal & Ors. & (2008) 1 WLN-464 it has been held that the determination of the amount of mesne profit depends on the facts & circumstance of each case. The size and number of accommodation, location, nature of premises, whether it is commercial or residential, the place where property is situated, whether it is village or city or metropolitan city etc., may be the guiding factors in an individual case for determining the mesne profit. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court in Om Prakash Sidh & Ors. v. Smt. Saraswati Devi Sharma & Ors. SB Civil First Appeal No.419/2008, vide order dated 23rd May, 2015 increased the mesne profit of the shop measuring 8'.7" x 6'.7" i.e. 56 sq. feet situated in Chaura Rasta, Jaipur from Rs.8.50 to Rs.20,000/- per month. 13. In the present case, as per the averment of the defendant-appellant, the suit shop was taken on monthly rent of Rs.80/- in the year 1950 and the same was increased up to Rs.250/- per month. The suit for eviction was instituted in the year 1992. The rates of the property since then have sky rocketed. The shop is situated in the heart of the city. The shops in the same vicinity were let out for Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.25,000/- and Rs.22,500/- per month in the years 2008 and 2010 with increase of rent. The defendant-appellant has not been able to controvert the same. It is only submitted on behalf of the defendant appellant that the valuation report is not correct and the same has been obtained after making payment of heavy amount to the valuer but no counter valuation report has been submitted. 14. The defendant-appellant has not been able to controvert the same. It is only submitted on behalf of the defendant appellant that the valuation report is not correct and the same has been obtained after making payment of heavy amount to the valuer but no counter valuation report has been submitted. 14. Considering the fact that the appeal has been admitted, the appellants are required to compensate the plaintiffs-respondents by making payment of reasonable mesne profits. Admittedly, the suit shop is situated in main Chaura Rasta which is a commercial area in the heart of Jaipur City. Looking to the over all facts of this case, which include size of the shop, its location as well as the present rent of Rs.250/- per month and the documents submitted by the plaintiffs-respondents, the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents deserves to be allowed and in view of the above, it would be reasonable to fix mesne profit @ Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of filing of this appeal till the disposal of the appeal. All arrears of mesne profit up to March, 2017 shall be deposited with the Bank account of the respondent within a period of six months from today. It is made clear that from the month of April, 2017 the appellant shall deposit mesne profit at the said rate by the 15th of every succeeding month with the Bank account of the respondents. 15. Further in case the arrears of mesne profit, as directed above, are not deposited within a period of six months from today, as also, if the appellant fails to make the payment of future mesne profit with effect from 01/04/2017, as directed above for consecutive four months, then it will be open to the respondents to get the decree of eviction passed in their favour executed even during the pendency of this second appeal. Consequently, the application stands allowed as indicated above.