SIMRAT BAJWA Vs. BALBIR SINGH CHINNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against a provisional determination of mesne profits pending the disposal of the appeal. The tenant had asked for stay of further proceedings. The demised property is half share of residential building in Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. The contractual rent as determined between the parties in the year 2000 was Rs. 475/- per month. Through the impugned order, the Appellate Court has determined the rent at Rs. 75,000/- per month as mesne profits payable. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that in relation to yet another building in the same sector, the Court in another case determined mesne profits at Rs. 20,000/-. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord would state that the rent was last fixed in the year 2000 and the mesne profit fixed by the Appellate Court was appropriate and there is no scope for modification.

(2.) The manner of determination of mesne profits by the Appellate Court while passing an order has to be necessarily summary and it is indeed a case of judicial innovation in directing just not the contractual rent but some mesne profits also to be paid in a case where the landlord has obtained an order of eviction but he is unable to execute the same on account of pendency of the case in an appellate forum. This is also to keep in mind a realistic situation that disposal of cases in Courts take long time and a recalcitrant tenant, who occupies a property at a low rent does not enjoy the benefit of stay by continuing to pay only an abysmally low rent. In a case where the determination has been at the rate of Rs. 475/- per month between the parties only about a decade back, an increase in rent at Rs. 75,000/- per month, in my view, is grossly inequitable. The interim direction which I had given directing the amount to be paid at Rs. 20,000/- per month, in my view, would accord with justice and I will make the direction given already as absolute. The future course of action as regards the liability will ultimately abide by the decision of the Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal. The determination made already, which stands confirmed through this order, will be applicable till the final disposal of the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also states that the direction given by this Court has been complied with and the amount has been paid without any fault.

(3.) In affirming an order which I have passed through the interim direction, I have taken note of the fact that it is a residential property in which the petitioner is in possession of half of the share and the landlord has been in possession of the remaining half where the tenant pays electricity charges not merely for the portion in her occupation but also for the property in the occupation of the landlord. I have also taken note of the fact that the tenant is a widow and lives on pension. The revision petition is disposed of with the above directions.