The appellant-tenant appealed an eviction order. The Appellate Authority stayed eviction conditionally on depositing mesne profits. This court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant failed to deposit the required amounts, justifying the imposition of the condition.
Dismissed; eviction stay condition upheld.
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.
CR No.2116 of 2013 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2116 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.07.2013
M/s UP State Handloom Corp. & anr.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
S. Manohar Singh & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Madra, Advocate for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
Vide order dated 1.3.2011, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh allowed the order of eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within two months.
Against the aforesaid eviction order, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said order was stayed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.4.2011.
The respondent-landlord moved an application for determination and payment of mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the demised premises by the petitioners after the date of eviction.
The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 31.1.2013 has determined such mesne profits and has directed the petitioner to deposit
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2
CR No.2116 of 2013 (O&M)
the same by way of fixed deposit carrying maximum rate of interest in a Nationalized Bank in favour of landlord with a stipulation that such amount of mesne profits along with accrued interest shall be paid after the final disposal of either side depending upon the result of the case.
The relevant part of the said order reads thus:
The amount of Rs.8.00 lacs per months fixed by this Court shall be deposited by the tenant by way of fixed deposit carrying maximum rate of interest in a Nationalized Bank in favour of landlord and the said amount along with accrued interest shall be paid after the final disposal to either side depending upon the result of the case. Applicantlandlord shall furnish an undertaking in the court to the effect that they will not withdraw the amount deposited in terms of FDRs till the decision of instant appeal. The tenant shall deposit the arrears of mesne profits w.e.f. 1.3.2011 till date within a period of 30 days and further tenant shall continue to deposit the future monthly mesne profits on 10th day of each calendar month failing which stay regarding operation of the impugned order of eviction shall stand automatically vacated.”
The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner-tenant was to deposit the aforesaid arrears of mesne profits by 10th of each calendar month failing which stay regarding operation of the
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3
CR No.2116 of 2013 (O&M)
order of eviction shall stand automatically vacated. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the amount of mesne profits as determined by the Appellate Authority and thus, has made its liable for eviction of the order of stay passed by the trial Court as the impugned order was conditional order.
Not only this, even this Court had passed the following order on 3.7.2013 whereby the petitioner was given an opportunity to do the needful in compliance of the order dated 31.1.2013:
“ On request, adjourned to 5.7.2013.
In the meantime, petitioners may deposit the amount of damages for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute with effect from the date of eviction as ordered by the Rent Controller.”
However, the petitioner has failed to do the needful even after passing of the aforesaid order.
Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
July 05, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the appellate authority’s order conditioning the stay of eviction on the deposit of mesne profits.
M/s UP State Handloom Corp. & anr.
S. Manohar Singh & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
