The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of interim compensation under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC does not equate to a judicial determination of mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

Facts:

2. The tenant has filed this CRA and has had the Appellate Court''s decree of eviction stayed. In that process, this Court tentatively fixed Rs.25,000/- as a monthly compensation to be paid to the landlords. As a condition precedent, this Court has also observed that once the rival parties place on record the necessary material, it will fix the interim compensation to be paid pending the Civil Revision Application.

3. In the context of fixing the interim compensation, I may set out the facts briefly. Initially, before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, the landlords filed Suit No.162 of 1996 against the applicant tenant for eviction. But the plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 to be presented before the proper court. The landlords, instead, instituted RAE Suit No.141/260 of 2008; the trial Court dismissed it on 16th September 2013. But the landlords succeed in Appeal No. 124 of 2013; the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai, allowed it on 6th October 2018. Aggrieved, the tenant filed this Civil Revision Application. And on 12th December 2018, she secured an interim stay.

4. The interim order, as I have noted, directs the tenant to pay Rs.25000/- per month as compensation until the Court fixes a reasonable amount as interim compensation. Based on the material either party placed on record, including the mesne profits reports prepared by the Government approved valuers, both the counsel have advanced their arguments.

Submissions:

Applicant''s:

5. Shri Amrut Joshi, the learned counsel for the tenant applicant, contends that the building was constructed in 1915 and is dilapidated. According to him, the area does not exceed 600 sq. ft. In this context, he submits that the landlords have admitted in their pleadings that the property is about 600 sq. ft., but it has later gone back on its own admission. That is, the landlords now assert that the property measures over 1,000 sq. ft.

6. To support his contentions, Shri Joshi has also drawn my attention to the landlords'' pleadings in the plaint to the effect that the leased property is 600 sq. ft, and that the initial rent was Rs.562/-. As per the pleadings, the rent was later raised to Rs.662/-. So it now stands at Rs.1200/- per month.

7. Shri Joshi argues that the landlords constituted a Charitable Trust, and that Trust is expected to lease out the property to the needy. It should not be swayed by profit motive. Besides, Shri Joshi elaborates on, what he calls, the well-established principles that weigh with the Court in its fixing the interim compensation. On that count, he has relied on these decisions: (i) Niaz Ahmad Khan v. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan and anr., (2008) 7 SCC 539 (ii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 , (iii) Chanddrakant Dhanu v. Sharmila Kapur, (2009) 2 MhLJ 243 .

8. Further, Shri Joshi has drawn my attention to the mesne profits reports on record. According to him, the landlords'' valuer prepared the report without inspecting the property. So the valuer has fixed the fair market rent for the suit property at Rs.71,500/- per month. And that amount, according to Shri Joshi, is exorbitant. On the other hand, he stresses that the fair market rent fixed by the tenant''s valuer is about Rs.12,000/-. This amount must be the just interim compensation.

Respondents'':

9. Per contra, Shri Foroze Bharuka, the learned counsel for the landlords, has initially touched on the merits. He contends that though the applicant tenant now claims the status of a tenant, she has actually trespassed on the suit property. To elaborate, Shri Bharuka submits that the applicant claims to be the adopted daughter of the original tenant, who died both intestate and issueless. At any rate, he submits that he will not take that issue further.

10. Then, Shri Bharuka has drawn my attention to the relative merits of the rival mes