ORDER : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Tejas P.Satta, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd November, 2017 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 in Chamber Summons below Exh. 19 wherein, learned Judge partly allowed the Chamber Summons of the petitioner by directing the respondent to deposit sum of Rs.200/- per month as mesne profit instead of monthly contractual sum of Rs.800/-. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 in chamber summons below Exhibit 19(Annexure “H”). (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an order and/or direction directing the respondent to pay a monthly sum of Rs.800/- to the petitioner as mesne profits during the pendency and final disposal of the Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 pending before the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. (C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petitioner, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 in chamber summons below Exh.19 (Annexure “H”).” 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that plaintiff, being owner of the suit premises, filed Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 against the respondent-original defendant for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit through his father and Power of Attorney namely Ashok Kumar Sharma. The suit premises being two room admeasuring 10/10 ft. situated at Gorani Chali, Opp. Vanzara Chali, Roshni Cinema, Dharamnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. That, the petitioner has entered into rent agreement on 28th January, 2014 with the respondent in respect of the suit premises for the monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- per month for a period of 11 months 29 days. It is further submitted that within two months from the date of execution of this rent agreement, the respondent returned back one room to the petitioner as they did not need it anymore. 1600/- per month for a period of 11 months 29 days. It is further submitted that within two months from the date of execution of this rent agreement, the respondent returned back one room to the petitioner as they did not need it anymore. That, remaining one room for monthly rent of Rs.800/- was still retained by the respondent and even till today, they are using this remaining 10/10 ft. room. That, after two months of execution of the rent agreement, no rent was paid by the respondent- defendant. Therefore, suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises and mesne profit etc. That, written statement was filed by the defendant contenting that no rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014 was executed between the parties and defendant is residing as tenant in the suit premises since last 15-20 years and was paying rent of Rs.200/- per month only. That, on 20th September, 2017, vide Exh. 19, petitioner filed chamber summons seeking direction that the respondent will pay the monthly contractual rent of Rs.800/- as mesne profits till the final disposal of the suit. That, defendant filed his reply on 27th September, 2017 of the chamber summons. That, application was partly allowed by the trial Court after hearing of the parties to the suit and respondent was directed to pay Rs.200/- per month as mesne profit instead of contractual sum of Rs.800/- prayed by the petitioner. That, impugned order passed by the trial Court is completely against the evidence on record. That, ownership of the suit property was never denied by the respondent before trial Court. That, rent agreement was executed between the parties on 28th January, 2014 with the signature of the respondent which was not considered by the learned trial Court nor any discussion was made in the impugned order. That, respondent has simply denied the rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014, no explanation was forwarded whatever regarding signature on the rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014. That, no any previous rent agreement was produced by the respondent to prove that they were residing in the suit premises as tenant since last 15-20 years ago. That, rent agreement dated 28.1.2014 was executed by the respondent. That, no any previous rent agreement was produced by the respondent to prove that they were residing in the suit premises as tenant since last 15-20 years ago. That, rent agreement dated 28.1.2014 was executed by the respondent. That, the reply submitted by the respondent in connection with the chamber summons, it was contended that the petitioner has taken consent of the respondent through fraud and misrepresentation at the time of execution of rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014. However, in their reply, respondent has simplicitor denied about the execution of the rent agreement. That, there was contradiction in the defence of the respondent whereby at one hand, respondent admits the execution of the rent agreement even though with an allegedly vitiated consent and on the other hand, respondent denied the execution of the rent agreement. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered in case of Pankajbhai Murabhai Dhoria Vs. Shantilal Vallabhdas Jogia-Decd & Ors reported in (2014) 55(2) GLR 1761. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 below application Exh. 19 and allowed this petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta appearing for the respondent has opposed the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the order was passed by learned City Civil Court after hearing the parties and decided the issue in right manner. It was further argued that detailed reply was filed by the respondent below Exh.21 wherein, it is clearly stated that respondent had not signed the rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014 and false contention was raised by the petitioner, therefore, alleged agreement was not binding to him. That, respondent is residing in the suit premises as tenant since last 15 years and paying the rent amount of Rs.200/- per month. That, no rent agreement was executed between the parties and therefore, order passed by the City Civil Court, directing the respondent to pay Rs.200/- per month as rent cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. That, respondent is residing in the suit premises as tenant since last 15 years and paying the rent amount of Rs.200/- per month. That, no rent agreement was executed between the parties and therefore, order passed by the City Civil Court, directing the respondent to pay Rs.200/- per month as rent cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. Learned advocate for the respondent has produced a copy of the passbook of State Bank of India and tried to convince that the address of the respondent is shown in the passbook is of suit premises from the beginning. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss the present petition. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the dispute arose between the parties, it appears that in the suit preferred by the petitioner, written statement was filed by the respondent. In para 13, it was denied that the suit premises was rented by the respondent at Rs.800/- only per month. As per the contention, respondent was residing in the suit premises since last 15-20 years at the rent of Rs.200/- per month. In para 16 of the written statement, it was averred that petitioner has taken the consent of the respondent through fraud and misrepresentation at the time of execution of rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014, such a consent cannot be bound to him as it was contrary to Section 56 of the Contract Act. Against the application below Exh.19 preferred by the present petitioner for mesne profit, written objections were filed by the respondent in the suit wherein, para 6, it was contended that rent premises was rented by the respondent at Rs.200/- only per month and he was residing since last 15-20 years. It was further contended that there was no agreement executed between the parties. There is apparent contradiction in the defence of the respondent. It can not be said that only with a view to get sympathy of the Court, it was averred by the petitioner that the rent amount was fixed at Rs.800/- only per month for a period of 11 months and 29 days. In fact, rent agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. In the order passed by learned City Civil Court dated 23rd November, 2017 below Exh.18 & 19, it is observed in para 5 as under :- 5. In fact, rent agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. In the order passed by learned City Civil Court dated 23rd November, 2017 below Exh.18 & 19, it is observed in para 5 as under :- 5. I have carefully gone through the pleadings. There is no dispute that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and defendant is the tenant of the suit property. As per the submission of the plaintiff, defendant has entered into an Leave and License Agreement on January, 2014 and they have agreed for rent of Rs.1,600/- per month and the said agreement was only for 11 months 29 days and on the other hand defendant has denied the execution of said agreement of Leave & License between them but he has shown his readiness and willingness to pay Rs.200/- per month to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not produced any other documents such as rent receipt issued to the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,600/-. Though the plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.800/- as mesne profit from the defendant. Considering the fact that the defendant is only in possession of one room admeasuirng 10/10 foot situated at Dharmnagar, Sabarmati and it is an admitted fact that the defendant is residing in the said premises alongwith his family members. Therefore, it will be fit and proper, if an amount of Rs.200/- per month will be paid by the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till the disposal of the suit. Hence, the following order :- ORDER (i) The plaintiff’s Chamber Summons is hereby partly allowed. (ii) The defendant is hereby directed to deposit an amount of Rs.200/- per month as mesne profit from the date of suit till the date of this order within one month and further directed to deposit the regular rent amount of Rs.200/- per month in the Court till the final disposal of the suit. 7. It is undisputed facts that the respondent is residing in one room admeasuring 10/10 ft. situated at Dharamnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad alongwith his family members. From the documents produced on record at annexure “C”, it appears that rent agreement was executed between the parties and it was notarized before the Notary on 28th January, 2014. Signature of the parties are also there which was confirmed by the Notary. situated at Dharamnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad alongwith his family members. From the documents produced on record at annexure “C”, it appears that rent agreement was executed between the parties and it was notarized before the Notary on 28th January, 2014. Signature of the parties are also there which was confirmed by the Notary. If we consider the contents of the said rent agreement, rent was agreed to be paid at Rs.1600/- only per month and period was fixed for 11 months and 29 days. As per the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner, out of two rooms, one room was handed over to the petitioner. There is no dispute in respect of the suit premises given to the respondent. It was further averred in the rent agreement that provisions of Rent Act would not be applicable to the eitherside. The dispute raised by the respondent about his signature or non execution of the rent agreement in the written statement or objections in the suit proceedings ought to have considered by the Court below at appropriate time. At present, respondent cannot be permitted to take any benefit that no rent agreement was executed by him under his signature. The rent agreement dated 28th January 2014 is notarized document before the Notary. By producing copy of the passbook of State Bank of India by the respondent, he cannot deny that no rent agreement was executed by him or he can not be permitted to establish that he is residing in the suit premises since last 15-20 years. This Court in a decision rendered in case of Pankajbhai Murabhai Dhoria (Supra) relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira reported in AIR 2012 SC 1727 wherein, para 14, it has observed that :- “14. Keeping the above principle of law in view, in the present case the owner of the property is required to be compensated by awarding mesne profit. This has to be realistic and in tune with the present market rent. However, there is no material with this Court based on which the present market rent can be ascertained. Keeping the above principle of law in view, in the present case the owner of the property is required to be compensated by awarding mesne profit. This has to be realistic and in tune with the present market rent. However, there is no material with this Court based on which the present market rent can be ascertained. Therefore, the amount which the present appellant had agreed before eleven years is accepted as it is, as the base and it is ordered that, the present appellant shall pay Rs.800/- per month till the possession of the suit premises is handed over to its owner. It is recorded that he has not paid this amount for three months even prior to 30.06.2003. Thus, for those three months and further for the period from 01.07.2003, he shall pay Rs.800/- per month to the respondents – owner till 28.02.2014. This amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondents within a period of three months from today. 8. After considering the arguments of the learned advocates and documents produced on record, it is difficult to believe the objection raised by the respondent that the suit premises was rented at an amount of Rs.200/- per month and rent agreement executed between the parties on 28th January, 2014 cannot be denied for its acceptance at this juncture. Hence, respondent is liable to pay rent of Rs.800/- only per month of the suit premises as claimed by the petitioner in his application vide Exh.19. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. 9. The impugned order passed below Exh.Nos.18 & 19 by learned Judge, Court No.19, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 23rd November, 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.800/- per month as mesne profit from the date of filing of the suit and clear the arrears amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of passing of this order. It is made clear that the findings of this Court in respect of rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014 are tentative subject to final contention raised by the eitherside and conclusion of the trial Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.