BALRAM LALWANI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code assailing the finding of issue Nos. 2(a) & (b), wherein the mesne profits has been claimed @ Rs.45,000/- p.m. has been reduced @ Rs.25,000/- p.m. sought from the date of suit till possession of the suit premise nut has been granted after 60 days of the date of judgment till the possession of the premise.

(2.) The learned Second ADJ, Katni pronounced the impugned judgment and decree dated 18/09/2014 in Civil Suit No.21-A/2012, wherein the suit was partly allowed. The suit house which is 1/3rd of house No.197 situated at Dr. Mangat Ram Market, Hanumanganj, Katni has been ordered to be evicted under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for the bonafide need of the plaintiff/appellant, but the learned trial Court allowed mesne profits @ 4 times of the monthly rent i.e. (Rs.6085/-x 4) Rs. 25,000/- p.m. payable after two months of the date of judgment, if the premise is not vacated by the respondent/defendant. Therefore, only few facts are necessary to be stated. The appellant is the landlord and the respondent/Bank was the tenant of the premise. The respondent was given lease of the said premise by the appellant for Rs.6,085/- p.m. in August 2002 for 5 years. The respondent did not vacate the premise after the lease period expired. The appellant, therefore, filed a civil suit before Second ADJ, Katni claiming that the plaintiff/appellant has no employment, therefore, he wants to open an electrical goods shop in the premise and, therefore, he has bonafide need of the premise. He also claimed that despite notice to the respondent/defendant, the defendant has not vacated the premise. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to receive mesne profit @ Rs.45,000/- p.m. as if the same is given as rent. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed mesne provide @ Rs.45,000/- p.m. from the respondent/defendant.

(3.) As stated above, the suit was decreed to the extent of the eviction of the premise 1/3rd of the house No.187 situated at Dr. Dr. Mangat Ram Market, Hanumanganj, Katni within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of judgment and mesne profits has been granted after 60 days of the date of judgment, in case, the respondent/defendant do not vacate the premise within 60 days. The learned trial Court held that, at the time of passing the judgment, the rent of the house would be 4 times of the rent agreed upon in 2002. Therefore, the Court fixed Rs.25,000/- p.m. and the same to be the mesne profits. The appellant has pleaded that the learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the termination of tenancy or demand of possession. According to the appellant, when the appellant/landlord issued notice for eviction and terminated the tenancy, the respondent became tenant at sufferance and on passing the decree of eviction his status of tenant on the date of suit converted to that of a wrongful occupier and, therefore, the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to receive mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit. It is also contented that the learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that the current market rate of rent proved by lease deed of other Nationalized Banks operating in the same locality. The respondent/defendant advertised for securing other premise on rent in the same locality, but inspite of demand and notice to produce it, deliberately did not produced the file containing the offers of rent prevailing in the locality. The mesne profits has been granted after 60 days of passing of the decree, whereas it should have commenced from the date of institution of the suit, therefore, the appellant pray that the mesne profits should be Rs.45,000/- p.m. and it ought to have been fixed from the date of the suit.