Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – ss.20, 32 – Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Old Act) – Suit or proceedings initiated under the Old Act, pending on the date of commencement of the New Act (2001 Act) – Grant of mesne profits – s.20 of the New Act, if applicable – Held: s.20 deals with the execution of the orders of the Rent Tribunal in the manner so prescribed – Sub-sec. (3) makes it clear that if the tenant does not vacate premises within three months of the date of issue of certificate for recovery of the possession, in that event he is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of three times the rent in case the premises is let out for commercial purposes, as applicable in the facts of the present case – Further, sub-sec.(3) of s.32 (Repeal and savings) has been given overriding effect by which the applications or suit or other proceedings filed under the Old Act pending on the date of commencement of the New Act before any Court shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Old Act as the Old Act had continued in force and the New Act had not been enacted – Thus, the suit or proceedings, if any, pending on the date of notification issued for applicability of the New Act, such proceedings would continue under the Old Act and New Act has no application – Therefore, High Court rightly rejected the contention of the appellant that maximum payable mesne profits u/s.20 of the New Act can be three times of the rent in case the premises is let out for commercial purposes, while dismissing the review petition – It rightly held that s.20, by which three times mesne profits to the standard rent was made permissible for the suit or proceedings started under the New Act, has no application in suit or proceedings initiated under the Old Act and pending on the date of commencement of the New Act – Reasoning given is in consonance to the spirit of s.32 of the New Act – Further, the amount of mesne profits has also been rightly decided by the High Court – Order of High Court does not warrant any interference.
Rent Control and Eviction – Decree of eviction – Entitlement of landlord to mesne profits – Held: After passing of the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises.
Rent Control and Eviction – Determination of mesne profit – Basis of – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The previous proceedings bearing No.61 of 2002 filed under Sections 6 and 7 was under the Old Act, wherein the standard rent was fixed Rs.45,000/- per month to the suit property. During those proceedings, the present suit seeking decree of eviction was filed by Plaintiffs under the provisions of Old Act in November 2002 prior to commencement of the New Act. Thus, on the date of commencement of the New Act, the present suit was pending and vide judgment dated 03.06.2016 Trial Court decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal by Lower Appellate Court on 10.01.2017. Challenging the judgment and decree concurrently passed by the two Courts, Second Appeal No.144/2017 has been filed by the Appellants, which has been admitted on 14.10.2017 and stay of ejectment passed by the High Court which was extended quite a few times. Thereafter, on filing an application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC asking mesne profits by Plaintiffs, it was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2018. Against which the Special Leave Petition bearing No.19863/2018 filed by Appellants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition after noting the submissions made before this Court. On perusal of the order dated 06.08.2018, it is clear that the Appellants raised a plea that maximum payable mesne profits as per Section 20 of the New Act can be three times of the rent in case the premises let out for commercial purposes. It was said that the standard rent was fixed @ Rs.45,000/- per month as a result of which three times would come to Rs.1,35,000/-, however, the direction of mesne profits @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month by the High Court is unjust. This Court without expressing any opinion with respect to fixing the quantum of mesne profits directed to approach the High Court by filing the review. On filing the review petition bearing No.95/2018, the appellants have taken the said plea and also stated that the Court in the order under review wrongly mentioned the let-out area as 407 sq. yard including 1200 sq. ft. court yard passage, in fact, the said area was a common passage for all. Therefore, the mesne profit of the said area cannot be determined against Appellants. The High Court noted that the case in hand shall be governed by the provisions of the Old Act. The High Court dismissed the review petition. Section 20 of the New Act deals with the execution of the orders of the Rent Tribunal in the manner so prescribed. Sub-section (3) makes it clear that if the tenant does not vacate premises within three months of the date of issue of certificate for recovery of the possession, in that event he is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of 2 times the rent in case premises let out for residential purposes; at the rate of three times the rent in case of premises let out for commercial purposes as applicable in the facts of the present case. On the said pretext, it is contended that the direction of mesne profits more than three times is contrary to the said provisions. The other side contends that the New Act has come into force on 01.04.2003 by way of notification published in the Official Gazette. As per Section 32 of the New Act, the repeal and savings of the Old Act has been specified. Sub-section (3) of Section 32 is relevant, which has been given overriding effect to other provisions by which the applications or suit or other proceedings filed under the Old Act (Repealed Act) pending on the date of commencement of the New Act before any Court shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Old Act (Repealed Act) as the Old Act had continued in force and this Act had not been enacted. Thus, it is clear that the suit or proceedings, if any, pending on the date of notification issued by the State Government for applicability of the New Act such proceedings would continue under the Old Act and New Act has no application. Therefore, the High Court has rightly rejected the contention while dismissing the review petition and rightly held that Section
20 of the New Act, by which three times mesne profits to the standard rent was made permissible for the suit or proceedings started under the New Act, have no application in suit or proceedings initiated under Old Act and pending on the date of commencement of New Act. The reasoning given in the order dated 01.04.2019, while rejecting the review petition by the High Court, is perfectly in consonance to the spirit of Section 32 of the New Act. [Paras 6-8][45-C-G; 46-C-G]
1.2 Before the High Court, while passing the original order dated 18.05.2018, it was contended by the Appellants that they are not in possession of 469.92 sq. meter (5058 sq. ft.). The said issue has been dealt with on the admitted fact in the earlier proceeding between the same parties regarding fixation of standard rent in which the parties came before this Court. In the order Court referring the affidavit of the Appellants filed before this Court admitted that the total covered area is 2100 sq. ft. and an open area of 1200 sq. ft. having total area of 407 sq. yards is a tenanted premises. The affidavit filed before this Court in previous proceedings if considered by the High Court, now the Appellants are estopped to take different plea disputing the area of tenancy. Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the High Court do not warrant any interference. [Para 9][48-H; 49-A-C]
2. After passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises. Looking to the fact that the decree of eviction passed by Trial Court on 03.03.2016 has been confirmed in appeal; against which second appeal is pending, however, after stay on being asked the direction to pay mesne profits or compensation issued by the High Court is in consonance to the law laid down by this Court, which is just equitable and reasonable. The basis of determination of the amount of mesne profit depends on the facts and circumstances of each case considering place where the property is situated i.e. village or city or metropolitan city, location, nature of premises i.e. commercial or residential are and the rate of rent precedent on which premises can be let out are the guiding factor in the facts of individual case. In the case at hand, the High Court in the impugned order observed that the tenanted property is located on the main road of New Colony near Panch Batti which is a commercial area in the heart of Jaipur City. The said finding has been arrived considering the voluminous documentary record dispelling the plea taken by the Appellants. However, the Court in the facts and circumstances found it reasonable to determine Rs.2,50,000/- per month as mesne profit. As per the discussion made hereinabove so far as the area of the tenanted premises and the location of the property is concerned, the findings of fact have been recorded by the High Court, those findings are based on the material brought on record which are neither perverse nor illegal. The amount of mesne profit as fixed @ Rs.2,50,000/- is also just and proper looking at the span of time i.e. 10 years from the date of fixing of the standard rent and six year from the date of passing of the decree of eviction. Therefore, the amount of mesne profit has rightly been decided by the High Court while passing the order impugned. The order fixing the mesne profit and the order passed on the review petition, filed by the Appellants, are just and proper which do not warrant any interference. [Paras 11-13][49-H; 50-B-G] Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 325 : [1999] 1 SCR 311; Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005)
1 SCC 705 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 843; State of
Maharashtra v. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and Others (2009) 9 SCC 772 : [2009] 13 SCR 801 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.