Mesne Profit – Calculation of – The tenant originally entered into the demised premises and 2nd floor thereof, totalling 7825 Sq.ft built-up area, as a lessor having leased it from the landowners for 3 years, i.e., 01.04.1962 to 31.03.1966 – In the year 2000, the landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession – After various rounds of litigation, the property was vacated and possession handed over on 23.04.2014 – As regards the payment of mesne profit, the High Court held that application of uniform rate of Rs. 160/- per sq.ft. per month would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, an order for ejectment has been passed against the tenant – The tenant, therefore, had no right to continue in the possession and enjoyment of the property – Entitlement to mesne profits is thus clearly established – There is no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the High Court – Considering the totality of the circumstances, while not interfering with the overall conclusion of the High Court, this Court finds it fit to reduce the rate of interest payable to 6% (simple in nature, per annum) instead of the 8% as awarded by the High Court. [Paras 11, 12] Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 – s.3 – HOCL-tenant vacated the premises after landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession – The High Court observed that if it was not for the protection to Public Sector Undertakings being removed as per s.3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, the tenant would have continued to occupy the premises – Correctness:
Held: It was in fact the landlord who had sent the notice for termination of the tenancy – That apart, being the Government, does not entitle a tenant to any extra consideration – Similarly, a PSU, even though substantially owned by the Government, stands on the same footing as any other tenant and cannot be given any special treatment. [Para 11]
Eviction Proceedings – Landlord-tenant disputes – Long period of pendency – Duty of Court:
Held: When it comes to landlord-tenant disputes, there is an angle of being deprived of the enjoyment of the property and also the monetary benefits that accrue from owning such property – The courts, being the courts of law and justice, are duty-bound to ensure that on their account, no party is made to suffer – In these kinds of disputes delayed adjudication means that both parties bear the brunt – The landlord suffers on account of not receiving, in some cases, the property itself, and in other cases, the monetary dues therefrom; and the tenant suffers on account of being directed to pay large sums of money within a short period of time when the matter is finally decreed – Even though the payment arises out of an obligation, making the requisite arrangements to pay the same is still an arduous task – Keeping in view the same, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay directed to take appropriate steps or issue directions to further the cause of expeditious disposal of these cases. [Para 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.