The revision petition challenging an interim order directing eviction and payment of `3,000/- monthly mesne profits by a tenant was dismissed, upholding the necessity of such orders to maintain equity during appellate delays.
Revision petition dismissed; interim order directing eviction and payment of `3,000/- per month mesne profits maintained.
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. 510 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 510 of 2013 Date of decision January 24, 2013
Jawahar Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
Vipan Mehra and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. R. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
K. Kannan, J (oral).
tenant who has been directed to pay mesne profit of `3,000/- per month during the pendency of the appeal. The tenant had been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller and this interim direction has been made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that there could be a direction for payment of a reasonable amount more than the contracted rent, especially when the tenant seeks for stay of operation of the eviction order. This type of order itself becomes necessary only due to the peculiar circumstances in Indian Courts where we have not been able to dispose of suits or appeals early and to keep the scales even for a landlord who has secured an order of eviction but could not execute the same to obtain some
CR No. 510 of 2013
2
benefit when there is likely to be a delay in disposal at the Appellate Court.
40/-. If we must make a reasonable projection the rise in rentals from the fact that the property was let out at 40/- for 40 years a direction for deposit of `3,000/- cannot be said to be high. Learned counsel also has an objection that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Achala Anand Vs. Appi Reddy 2005 (1)RCR 1 (SC) the direction must have been only to deposit the money in Court to the credit of the case and not to be allowed for the landlord to receive the amount assessed. I will not see the direction contained in the case of Achala_Anand's case (supra) has constituted any procedure in so far as it directed a deposit. It was a manner of disposal under the particular circumstances. If the direction for deposit is not itself a very large amount, no serious prejudice could be ever caused to the tenant by having to pay the amount to the landlord in the event of success of the tenant in appeal. It would always be possible for the tenant to seek for adjustment of the amount paid in excess over the contracted rent for the succeeding months and not to tender any rent till the amount paid in excess is completely wiped out. I do not find anyCR No. 510 of 2013 3
illegality in the order passed by the Court below for intervention in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.
dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
January 24 , 2013 archana
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision in intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution should be allowed regarding the interim direction for payment of mesne profits to a landlord seeking stay of eviction.
Whether the interim direction for payment of `3,000/- per month to the landlord before deposit in Court is illegal or prejudicial to the tenant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Achala AnandDistinguished¶22
Achala Anand Vs. Appi Reddy 2005 (1)RCR 1 (SC)
Jawahar Singh
Vipan Mehra
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court