MAYA DEVI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard Sri Piyush Garg, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Amit Bhatt, counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY the present revision filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 10th February, 2003 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/additional District Judge by which the eviction order has been passed, but no cost and mesne prof its have been awarded at the market rate.

(3.) THE Judge Small Cause Court has decreed the suit to the following effect : Hindi 6. No revision has been filed by the defendant / respondent against the said order. 7. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has complied with the order passed by the Judge Small Cause Court and has vacated the premises within the time allowed by the Judge Small Cause Court. 8. Counsel for the applicant has confined his arguments with regard to the payment of the cost as well as the mesne profits 13th March, 2000 i. e. after the service of the notice of the termina tion of tenancy and his stand was just the unauthorized occupant after the ter mination of tenancy. 9. THEre is no dispute that the de fendant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 10,032 and the Judge Small Cause Courts has directed to the defendant to hand-over the possession within a period of six months and the respondents have handed over the possession of the land lord. 10. In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed the mesne profit to the extent of Rs. 400 per day amounting to Rs. 1,34,000/ -. However, since the decree has already been executed, the question remains only for the mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 400 per day and the cost of the suit. 11, So far as the mesne profit is concerned, the same has been paid at the rate of Rs. 10,032/- per month. How ever, the grievance of the plaintiff is that the Judge Small Cause Courts has not considered that he is also entitled for the mesne profit at the market rate in ac cordance with the decisions of the Apex Court in Marshall Sons and Company (I) Ltd. Vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. And an other 1999 (2) SCC Page 325, the Apex Court has observed that the landlord is entitled to recover the mesne profit/com pensation at the market rate. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below : "6. Having considered the relevant submissions of the parties including the submissions with regard to mar ket rent. (2) THE respondents are directed to pay the mesne profits/compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. ft from 1984 till today and the rate of Rs. 20 from today till the disposal of the suit. While making this payment, the payments already made shall be ad justed. So far as the arrears are con cerned, they be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments. " 12. Similar view has been taken in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 after relying upon various judgments to the fol lowing effect: "13. In Shyam Charan v. Sheoji Bhai (1977) 4 SCC 393, this Court has up held the principle that the tenant con tinuing in occupation of the tenancy premises after the termination of ten ancy is an unauthorized 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. . . . . . . . . . . . After determina tion of the tenancy, the position of the tenant is akin to that of a trespasser and he cannot claim that the meas ure of damages awardable to the land lord should be kept tagged to the rate of rent payable under the provisions of the Rent Control Order. If the real value of the property is higher than the rent earned then the amount of com pensation for continued use and oc cupation of the property by the ten ant can be assessed at the higher value. 13. Relying upon the judgment of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. JT2004 (1) SC 410:2005 (1) SCC 705 :2005 SCFBRC 99 in Achal Mishra Vs. Ram Shankar Singh reported in 2005 (I) ARC Page 887 it has been observed as under: "we make it clear that the respond ents shall be liable to pay the rent equivalent to mesne profits with effect from the date with which they are found to have ceased to be entitled to retain possession of the premises as tenant for such period the landlord's entitlement cannot be held pegged to the standard rent. Reference may be had to the law laid down by the Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V Federal Motors (P) Ltd. , JT 2004 (I) SC 410.-2005 (10) SCC 705 : 2005 SCFBRE 99. " 14. Considering the aforesaid fact, the plaintiff will be entitled for the cost of the suit as well as the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 400 per day after the termina tion of tenancy up to the date of hand ing- over the possession. 15. Subject to the aforesaid modifi cation regarding the payment of the cost as well as the mesne profit at the rate of 400 per day from after the termination of tenancy upto the date of handing over the possession, the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court is confirmed. 16. Revision, therefore, partly suc ceeds to the extent of payment of the cost as well as the mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 400 per day from after the termina tion of tenancy up to the date of handing over the possession of the premises in dis pute. 17. Revision is allowed. No order as to costs. .