V.S. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O K.M. CHOWDEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.R. SRI LOKESH M.C. S/O LATE K.M. CHOWDEGOWDA AND LATE V.S. VIJAYALAXMI Vs. SMT. SADANA MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner. Respondent is the defendant. The relief prayed in the suit is to direct the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff and to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff from June 2007 till the date of termination of tenancy on 25.10.2007 and for awarding damages from the date of termination till the date of having over of the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Respondent/defendant has filed written statement dated 21.02.2009 and has contested the suit claim. Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 3 dated 26.06.2009 under Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the defendant to pay the arrears of interim mesne profit at Rs. 16,000/ - per month from June 2007 to May 2009 (24 months and for further period). Defendant has filed objections dated 08.09.2009 to I.A. No. 3. The trial court has dismissed I.A. No. 3 by observing that, the plaintiff ought to have asked the arrears of rent, but has asked for interim mesne profit, which can be awarded after the enquiry and during the pendency of the suit, the application for mesne profits is not maintainable and the application is not proper.

(2.) THE respondent/defendant in the objections filed to I.A. No. 3 has stated that, she has paid the rent through cheque and cash to the plaintiff and her son, till the end of December 2007. It is not the case of the respondent that, the amount payable thereafter has been paid. Under the general law, and in cases where the tenancy is governed only by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, once the tenancy comes to an end by determination of lease, the right of the tenant to continue in possession of the premises comes to an end and for any period thereafter, for which she continues to occupy the premises, she becomes liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate at which the landlord could have let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant.

(3.) IN the case of Shyam Charan Vs. Sheoji Bhai and Another, AIR 1977 SC 2270 , the Apex Court has upheld the principle that the tenant continuing in occupation of the tenancy premises after the termination of tenancy is an unauthorised and wrongful occupant and a decree for damages or mesne profits can be passed for the period of such occupation, till the date he delivers the vacant possession to the landlord.