Petitioner challenged interim order fixing mesne profit conditions in pending rent appeal. Court held conditions just and reasonable, dismissing writ petition summarily without entertaining merits challenge.
Writ petition dismissed summarily.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5952/07
Statyendra Nath Bhardwaj Vs. Smt. Devki
Devi Gupta & Ors.
Date of order : 11/12/2007.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Shri Satish Pachori for the petitioner.
******
This writ petition has been filed
against the order dated 22.5.07 whereby
the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has
while entertaining the appeal of the
petitioner-tenant against the eviction
order passed by the Rent Tribunal dated
15.11.2006 has directed him to pay a sum
of Rs.3,400/- as mesne profit from 1st
May, 2007 on month to month basis and
also deposit any decreetal amount that
may be due and has stated in execution of
the eviction order subject to his
complying with the aforesaid conditions.
The learned appellate court has further
2
directed that out of the aforesaid amount
of Rs.3400/- per month, the amount of
Rs.1,700/- per month shall never been
withdrawn by the respondent-landlord who
shall file an undertaking before the
appellate court. It was directed that the
remaining amount shall be adjusted
subject to final judgment that may be
passed in appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in
assailing the aforesaid order has argued
that the appellate court could not put
such an unreasonable condition inasmuch
as the amount of rent initially fixed in
July 2, 1996 was only Rs.1,000/- per
month and the Tribunal has revised the
same by calculating it at the rate of
7.5% as per the provisions of Section 6
of the Rent Control Act, 2001 whereas the
aforesaid rate has been reduced to 5% by
Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amend)
3
Act, 2005. The learned counsel also
assailed the judgment of the Rent
Tribunal dated 15.11.2006 on merits.
Having heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner, I do not deem it
appropriate to entertain the challenge to
the judgment dated 15.11.2006 passed by
the Rent Tribunal, Kota lis judis by
either of the parties in the appeal which
is pending before the Appellate Rent
Tribunal. In so far as the challenge to
the condition imposed by the Appellate
Rent Tribunal is concerned, I find the
aforesaid condition to be just and
reasonable. The petitioner-tenant suffer
a decree of eviction and the appellate
court has while passing the interim order
has every right to put the tenant to just
andappropriateconditions.
Reasonableness of the order passed by the
Appellate Rent Tribunal is further
4
evident from the fact that it has while
fixing the mesne profit as Rs.3,400/- per
month directed that only 50% of that
amount shall be disbursed to the
respondent-landlord upon his furnishing
the undertaking not to withdraw the
remaining 50% which shall be liable to be
adjusted as per the final judgment passed
by it.
I therefore do not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the
Appellate Rent Tribunal.
The writ petition is therefore
dismissed summarily.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/
Statyendra Nath Bhardwaj
Smt. Devki Devi Gupta
Mohammad Rafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court