AMRIT KUMAR GARG Vs. ADDL DISTT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner- landlord has challenged the order dated 28. 10. 2005 (Annex. 1) whereby the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3, Ajmer allowed the application u/order 41 Rule 5 read with Sec. 151 CPC filed by the defendant-tenant-respondent and passed interim stay order for payment of rent @ Rs. 80/- per month with other conditions of Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.

(2.) SUBMISSION of counsel for the petitioner-landlord is that in case of grant of interim stay order against passing of the decree of eviction, he is entitled to get rent @ Rs. 30,000/- per month by way of mesne profits. The counsel placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in M/s. Atmaram Property Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005 (1) RCR 1) and Anderson Wright and Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy (2005 (1) RCR 624 ).

(3.) IN Anderson Wright and Co. (supra), the Supreme Court has also considered the said judgment of M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. , and held that the condition of higher amount can be treated as mesne profit or compensation for use and occupation or the loss occasioned to landlord by delay in execution. Paras 5 and relevant portion of para 6 of the judgment in Anderson Wright and Co. (supra) read as under: &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" 5. As held by this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212 (SC): 2005 (1) SCC 705, once a decree for eviction has been passed, in the event of execution of decree for eviction being stayed, the appellants can be put on such reasonable terms, as would in the opinion of the appellate Court reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree by the grant of stay in the event of appeal being dismissed. It has also been held that with effect from the date of decree of eviction, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant. While determining the quantum of the amount so receivable by the landlord, the landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent which was prevalent prior to the date of decree. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants cannot be held liable to pay anything more than the standard rent of the premises, in spite of the decree for eviction having been passed as the same is subjudice. This submission needs a summary dismissal in view of the judgment of this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. 's case (supra ). . . . "