Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3138 (PNJ)

Sanjay Nagrath & Anr. v. Raj Kumar Nagrath

2019-11-22

JAISHREE THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Jaishree Thakur J. - CM-13259-C-2019 Allowed as prayed. Reply filed to the application for vacation of status quo order is taken on record. CM-13262-C-2019 2. This is an application that has been filed seeking to implead on record legal representatives of appellant No.2-Vidhya Wati, who is stated to have died on 23.01.2019 leaving behind legal representatives as mentioned in para 3 of the application. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. RSA-244-2015 5. While partly allowing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff on 23.09.2013, the lower court had directed the appellants-defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of two months, failing which the respondent-plaintiff would be at liberty to seek the assistance of the court to take possession the said premises. The lower court further directed the appellants-defendants to pay the mesne profits @ Rs.7000/- per month on account of use and occupation charges of the demised premises w.e.f. 18.02.2011 till the delivery of the possession. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-defendants filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. 7. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below have been assailed in this regular second appeal. 8. While issuing the notice of motion in the matter on 21.01.2015, this court had directed that "status quo as regards possession, as it exists today, shall be maintained till the next date of hearing" and since then, the said interim order has been extended regularly. Thereafter, an application bearing CM No.10214-C-2015 came to be filed on 27.08.2015 for vacation of stay order dated 21.01.2015 by the respondent-plaintiff. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, as the dispute is between immediate family members, however, the same remained unsuccessful. Since then, the matter has been lingering on for arguments. On the last date of hearing viz. 14.11.2019, this court had directed the parties to be present in court today, pursuant to which order, both the parties are present in court today. However, despite making a sincere effort by this court to settle the dispute amicably between the parties, nothing fruitful has come out. 9. On the last date of hearing viz. 14.11.2019, this court had directed the parties to be present in court today, pursuant to which order, both the parties are present in court today. However, despite making a sincere effort by this court to settle the dispute amicably between the parties, nothing fruitful has come out. 9. By way of application bearing CM No.10214-C-2015, the respondent-plaintiff is seeking vacation of stay order dated 21.01.2015 inter alia on the ground that the appellants-defendants had been directed to pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month w.e.f. 18.02.2011 and this court, while passing the stay order dated 21.01.2015 had not stayed the recovery of the mesne profits after considering all the facts. It is contended that the appellants-defendants are liable to pay the mesne profit and in the event of non-payment, they are liable to be evicted from the demised premises on this ground alone. It is also submitted that in the execution petition the appellants-defendants are not making the payment of mesne profits under the garb of stay order dated 21.01.2015. 10. In the reply filed to the said application, the appellants-defendants have submitted that on filing of the execution petition for the recovery of mesne profits by the respondents-plaintiff, the appellants-defendants approached this court by way of Civil Revision No.2660 of 2016, in which stay was granted in favour of the appellants-defendants. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. 12. As a matter of fact, the appellants-defendants had been directed to pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month w.e.f. 18.02.2011 and by an order dated 21.01.2015 passed in RSA No.244 of 2015, this court while issuing the notice of motion, had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, as it was existing on that date. After the filing of the execution petition for recovery of the mesne profits, the appellants-defendants had approached this court by way of CR No.2660 of 2016, in which by an order dated 12.04.2016, the execution proceedings had been ordered to be stayed, which interim order is still continued. After the filing of the execution petition for recovery of the mesne profits, the appellants-defendants had approached this court by way of CR No.2660 of 2016, in which by an order dated 12.04.2016, the execution proceedings had been ordered to be stayed, which interim order is still continued. Under this back ground of the case, this court is convinced with the arguments raised by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that since there are concurrent findings of the courts below in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the appellants-defendants are enjoying the demised premises without paying a single penny to him, despite the fact that by its judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013, the lower court had directed the appellants-defendants to pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month w.e.f. 18.02.2011 on account of use and occupation charges of the demised premises, this court thinks it appropriate to direct the appellants-defendants to deposit the mesne profits, as directed by the lower court on 23.09.2013 upto the month of January, 2020 with the execution court within a period of two months from today, with a further direction to pay the future mesne profits with the executing court on or before 7th day of subsequent month regularly. The executing court is directed to deposit the said mesne profits in a fixed deposit with some nationalized bank fetching higher interest and the same would be released, subject to the further order of this court. In case of noncompliance of this order by the appellants-defendants, there would be no hurdle for the respondent-plaintiff in executing the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 13. Put up on 31.01.2020. 14. Interim order to continue, subject to the aforesaid compliance of the order. 15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.