The Court allowed the appeal in terms, clarifying that the appellant must pay mesne profits subject to the final suit outcome. It directed the SDM to de-seal the property to facilitate surrender of possession to the respondent.
Appellant directed to hand over possession; SDM ordered to de-seal premises for removal of articles.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~20
versus SEVA SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manjeet Singh Sharma and Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advs. Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. for SDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
FAO 565/2016 Page 1 of 4
Rs.22,000/- w.e.f. 01st February, 2006; and the respondent terminated the lease by notice dated 09th September, 2009. The respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for seeking direction to the appellant to pay rent @ Rs.22,000/- per month from September, 2009.
FAO 565/2016 Page 2 of 4
lessee be void. In that view of the matter, the appellant had the option to surrender the lease when a portion of the suit property was demolished. However, since appellant chose to continue the possession, the liability to pay the rent would continue.
FAO 565/2016 Page 3 of 4
SDMC under signature of Court Master.
AUGUST 01, 2017 ak
J.R. MIDHA, J.
FAO 565/2016 Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should confirm the trial court's order directing payment of mesne profits subject to the final outcome of the underlying suit.
Whether the appellant surrendering the sealed premises and handing over possession was legally tenable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tarneet Singh Chawla
Seva Singh
J.R. Midha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
