VIJAY VYAS Vs. ABHISHEK GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition fifled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which, while passing stay order in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur passed an order that during pendency of the appeal the execution of the judgment dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur shall remain stayed provided the petitioner-appellant deposits 3 times of the rent amount which is Rs.15,150/- per month as mesne profits with the respondents.

(2.) As per facts of the case, respondents No.1 and 2 filed2 an application for eviction from shop against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on the ground of personal bona fide necessity and that petition was allowed vide judgment dated 01.04.2011 by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur against the said judgment along with prayer of stay in which an interim order was passed on 09.08.2011 that execution of the judgment of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 01.04.2011 shall remain stayed upon the condition that the petitioner shall pay 3 times of the rent amount as mesne profits to the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner is challenging the valdity of said order on the ground that the appellate Court has committed a serious error of law while passing such order to pay 3 times rent as mesne profits which is determined by the Rent Tribunal during pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention towards subsection (10) of Section 19 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, in which, it is specifically provided that the Appellate Tribunal may in its discretion pass such interlocutory order during the pendency of the appeal as it may deem fit; meaning thereby, the Rent Appellate Tribunal although has discretion to pass such interlocutory order but, here, in this3 case, the Rent Tribunal has erroneously passed an order of stay upon illegal condition to deposit 3 times rent as mesne profits.