HEERA TRADERS Vs. KAMLA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals raise certain common questions apart from the respondent being common. Hence the common judgment. By the impugned orders passed in these cases, the High Court while allowing the application filed by appellants under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and applications for an appropriate direction to the appellants to pay mesne profits along with the regular monthly rent and damages filed by respondent, directed that the appellants shall pay the rent of suit shops at the rate of Rs.18000.00 per month to the respondent from the date of decree passed by the lower Appellate Court till the disposal of the Second Appeals. The appellants were directed to pay the entire arrears of rent within a period of 2 months failing which the interim order of protection from eviction under the decree was to stand vacated.

(2.) The Respondent is the landlady of the Appellants in both the appeals. In SLP (Civil) No. 14357-58 of 2021, the appellant was inducted as a tenant of a non- residential accommodation of 150 square feet for a monthly rent of Rs.847.00 in the year 1975. On 6/8/2009 the Respondent filed a suit under Sec. 12 (1) (a), (c), (f) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Apart from eviction the respondent also sought a decree for mesne profit. The trial court decreed the suit and ordered eviction under Sec. 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Act. First Appeal filed by the appellant stood dismissed by judgment dtd. 25/3/2014. It is thereupon that the appellant filed a Second Appeal on 12/6/2014. He moved an application on 18/6/2014. An interim order against eviction was passed of stay from eviction. Thereafter the respondent filed an application for Appropriate Directions as Reply to the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. The court directed on 25/4/2016, the Rent Control Authority to submit a report regarding the prevailing market rate of accommodation in question making it clear that the calling of such report did not mean that a decision was taken on the question whether direction could be issued on the application filed by the respondent. On 16/9/2016 the Second Appeal came to be admitted. The interim order which was passed earlier came to be made absolute. The Rent Control Authority, it is alleged, without affording opportunity to the appellant, submitted a report which was prepared relying on the Panchnama of the Revenue Inspector. On 17/3/2020, the court proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the appellant to pay the mesne profit of Rs.18000.00 per month. It was the case of the appellant that he came to know about the order when the respondent moved an application for executing the order dtd. 17/3/2020 and an application for recall filed by the appellant of the order dtd. 17/3/2020 came to be dismissed.

(3.) In the other appeal, the appellant was likewise inducted into a non-residential accommodation admeasuring 100 square feet on a monthly rent of Rs.622.00. Otherwise by the order impugned the appellant has asked to pay rent at the rate of Rs.18,000.00 per month.