Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar Jain Son of Late Deendayal Jain v. Komal Prasad Son of Madan Mohan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2019CW/3826/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging orders rejecting mesne profits claims, the court examined Section 20(3) of the Rent Control Act, 2001. Noting the lower court did not direct payment under that section, the High Court allowed the existing orders, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The orders of the Executing Court and the Appellate Court were not interfered with.

Mukesh Kumar Jain Son of Late Deendayal Jain Vs Komal… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 3826/2019

¶3

Mukesh Kumar Jain Son Of Late Deendayal Jain, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Through Vardhman Vastralaya, Near Deendayal Park, Baran (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Komal Prasad Son Of Madan Mohan, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Vijayvargiya, Resident Of Vijay Kirana Store, Pratap Chowk, Shahbad Ward Baran (Raj.). Presently Resident Of Jhalariya Kuan Ke Samne Wali Gali, Satsang Bhawan Road, Baran, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit, Adv.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

14/03/2019

¶12

The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenging the order dated 04.01.2019 passed in appeal and the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Executing Court rejecting the contention that the tenant was required to pay the three times rent for the period during which he was allowed to continue to hold the premises in terms of the directions issued by this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No.7691/2014 (Komal Prasad Versus Mukesh Kumar) vide order dated 19.09.2014.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 20 (3) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 would apply as soon as this Court had directed and given one and a half year time to the respondent-tenant for vacating the premises in

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CW-3826/2019]

¶16

view of the fact that the respondent-tenant pay three times decided rent, he filed execution petition which was rejected and the Appellate Court has also wrongly rejected the application and appeal. Learned counsel has taken this Court to Section 20 (3) and Section 20 (4) of the Act to contend that the mesne profits have to be calculated three times the rent.

¶17

I have considered the learned counsel’s submissions find that the provisions of Section 20 (3) and 20 (4) are required to be quoted as under:-

¶18

“20.Execution of the orders. -

¶19

(1)…………….

¶20

(2)……………

¶21

(3) If the tenant does not vacate the premises within three months of the date of issue of certificate for recovery of the possession, he shall be liable, from the date of issue of certificate for recovery of possession to pay mesne profits at the rate of 2 times the rent in case of premises let out for residential purpose, at the rate of 3 time’s the rent in case of premises let out for commercial purposes and at the rate of 3 times the rent in case certificate for recovery of immediate possession has been issued under Section 16.

¶22

(4) The Rent Tribunal shall conduct the execution proceedings in relation to a final order or any other order passed under this Act in summary manner and dispose of the application for execution made under this section within forty five days from the date of service of notice on opposite party.

¶23

Explanation.- Filing of an appeal or other proceeding against the order of issue of certificate for recovery of possession or immediate

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-3826/2019]

¶26

possession will not save the tenant from his liability to pay mesne profits, at the rates specified under sub-section (3), unless specifically ordered otherwise by the Appellate Rent Tribunal or the Court before which such an order is under challenge and if the order of issue of recovery certificate is finally maintained, the tenant shall be liable to pay mesne profits at the rates specified under sub-section (3) from the date on which the recovery certificate was initially issued.”

¶27

In terms of explanation to Section 20 (4) it is apparent that the specific order passed by the Court which grants the indulgence, would apply over and above the provisions of the Act. A look at the order dated 19.09.2014 passed by this Court in SBCWP NO.7691/2014, reads as under:-

¶28

“After arguing the writ petition to some length, learned counsel for petitioner prayed that if reasonable time is granted to vacate the premises then writ petition is not required to be contested. The aforesaid statement has been made on instructions. It is further prayed that period of 1 year & 6 months may be granted for vacation of the premises.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent agrees to the aforesaid.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the parties and taking note of agreed time to vacate the premises, this writ petition is disposed of without causing interference in the impugned order on following terms:

¶31

(i) The petitioner will vacate the premises within a period of 1 year & 6 months starting from 1st October, 2014. He will furnish an undertaking to

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-3826/2019]

¶34

this effect before the executing court within four weeks.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner would regularly pay the rent on monthly basis by 15th of every month. In case of default, the respondent would be at liberty to seek modification of this order and even for reduction of the period to vacate the premises. (iii) The petitioner undertakes not to alienate or give possession of the premises to any one during the intervening period rather would hand over the possession to the respondent on expiry of period given above. He also undertakes to maintain property without damages. This disposes of stay application also.”

¶36

From the perusal of the said order it is apparent that this Court directed the tenant to pay regularly the rent of monthly basis by 15 of every month and in case of default, the respondent (therein) who is the petitioner (herein) would be at liberty to modify the said order. It is noticed that the Court did not direct that the tenant shall pay rent in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Act of 2001 and hence it has to be presumed that the order has been passed in terms of Explanation to Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2001.

¶37

Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court and the Appellate Court as impugned before this Court. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.

¶38

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶39

R.Vaishnav

¶40

Mukesh Kumar Jain Son of Late Deendayal Jain v. Komal Prasad Son of Madan Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Jain Son of Late Deendayal Jain v. Komal Prasad Son of Madan Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanaryan Bhargava S/O Sh. Sukha Ram Bhargava Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Chouhan S/O Sh. Tejpal Chauhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Khatana Vs Directorat General Crpf and Ors.

Smt. Usha Devi Agrawal Wife of Shri Sohan Lal Agrawal Vs Shri Radheyshyam Choudhary S/O. Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji Choudhary

Kavita Choudhary Daughter of Shri Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gordhan S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh Vs Smt Dhappi Devi W/O Late Shri Kalua