AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad (P-1), whereby, the petitioner-tenant had been directed to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month with effect from 17.12.2025 till 29.04.2026 (date of impugned order), along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner had been further directed by the Appellate Authority to clear the arrears of mesne profits before the next date of hearing i.e. 30.05.2026, and also to pay mesne profits before the 10th of every calendar month.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is alleged by the petitioner that in the year 1990, the rent of shop in question was Rs.500/- per month, as such fixing of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month is exorbitant.
While elaborating the powers of the Appellate Court exercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 705, has observed that the Appellate Court is empowered to put the tenant on terms; the tenant having suffered an order for eviction must comply and vacate the premises; his right to appeal is statutory, but his prayer for grant of stay is dealt with in exercise of equitable discretionary jurisdiction of the appellate Court. It is also observed that the Appellate Court has to be alive to the fact that it is depriving the successful landlord of the fruits of the decree and is postponing the execution of the order for eviction and there is every justification for the Appellate Court to put the appellant-tenant on terms; direct the appellant to compensate the landlord by payment of reasonable amount, which is not necessarily the same as the contractual rate of rent. The conclusions summed up by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para No.19 of the judgment are as under:-
“To sum up, our conclusions are:-
(1)while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of 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.”
In the present case, it is not disputed that the shop in question is situated in Market No.5 of the New Industrial Township, Faridabad and the area is approximately 126 square feet. The Appellate Authority has noticed that the respondent-landlord has placed on record registered lease deed dated 04.07.2023, in which the shop measuring 126 square feet, situated in the same market was leased on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. The area of the shop in question is more than the said shop.
Keeping in view the registered lease deed having been placed on record by the landlord before the Appellate Authority, reflecting that another shop in the adjoining area is fetching more than Rs.15,000/- per month as rent, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the mesne profits have been assessed as Rs.15,000/- per month.
In view of the above, present petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.