VIJAY PAL SINGH Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant in the suit impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 21.11.2016 and the First Appellate Court dated 4.7.2017; by which the courts below have decreed the suit to the extent of relief of arrears of rent from April, 2014 till June, 2015 and has also granted mesne profits at Rs.15,000/- per month from July, 2015 till the appellant/tenant vacated the suit premises.

(2.) On the aspect of grant of mesne profits, it is argued by the appellant/defendant, who appeared in person and who is an Advocate, that the mesne profits could only be granted pendente lite and till delivery of possession and not prior to the filing of the suit. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant is completely misconceived because mesne profits are granted on termination of tenancy and when the legal entitlement of the person to stay in the tenanted premises as a tenant comes to an end. Once tenancy comes to an end then charges which are payable are mesne profits as per Section 2(12) CPC. Therefore, the argument that mesne profits cannot be granted prior to filing of the suit is misconceived and is rejected noting that as per limitation mesne profits can be granted up to three years prior to the filing of the suit . I may also note that the case of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord was that the tenancy was terminated with effect from 30th June, 2015 inasmuch as the appellant/defendant/tenant had agreed to vacate on 30.6.2015, and since that was not done, the period after 30th June, 2015 is the period of illegal possession of the suit premises by the appellant/defendant. The first argument of the appellant/defendant is therefore rejected.

(3.) The second argument which is urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant is that the courts below have erred in granting arrears of rent at the admitted rate of Rs.10,500/- per month from April 2014 till June 2015 inasmuch as the undertaking dated 11.4.2016 filed by the appellant/defendant before the SHO, and which document is relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff himself as document Ex.PW2/3 (colly), the appellant/defendant had stated in this document Ex.PW2/3 (colly) that rent was paid till 30.6.2015 except balance of Rs.21,000/-. It is argued that this undertaking once is used for holding illegal occupation of the appellant/defendant from July, 2015 then the same argument has to be read as a whole and not in part.