Back
High Court Of Delhi
MARSHALL SONS - Appellant
Versus
SAHI ORETIONS - Respondent
Civil 420 of 1999
Decided On : 01/29/1999
RENT CONTROL - BOMBAY RENT ACT, 1947 - SECTION 13(1)(g) - EVICTION - DECREE FOR EVICTION - EXECUTION - OBSTRUCTION - PENDING SUIT BY OBSTRUCTOR FOR DECLARATION OF TENANCY RIGHTS - DIRECTIONS BY SUPREME COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF SUIT AND PAYMENT OF MESNE PROFITS/COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant obtained a decree for eviction in 1969, which was confirmed by the High Court. The decree was not executed due to various reasons. In 1992, the respondent, who was in possession of the property, filed a suit for declaration of tenancy rights. The trial court directed the respondent to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 443.93 per month from 1984 to 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate to direct the respondent to deliver possession to the appellant at that stage since the suit filed by the respondent was still pending. However, the Court directed the respondent to pay mesne profits/compensation at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per sq. ft. from 1984 till the date of the order and at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per sq. ft. from the date of the order till the disposal of the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to immediate possession of the property in view of the decree for eviction granted in his favour? 2. Whether the respondent was liable to pay mesne profits/compensation for holding over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate to direct the respondent to deliver possession to the appellant at that stage since the suit filed by the respondent was still pending. 2. The Court held that in order to protect the interest of the judgment creditor, it was necessary to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court directed the respondent to pay mesne profits/compensation at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per sq. ft. from 1984 till the date of the order and at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per sq. ft. from the date of the order till the disposal of the suit. The Court also directed that the suit be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of the order.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THIS appeal has been fild under the following circumstances. The present appellant had obtained a decree for eviction in Rent Suit No. 594/ 5333 of 1962 as early as on 16th June, 1969. The suit was filed against: (i) M/s. United Artists Corp. (Original Defendant No. 1), (ii) The Western India Theaters Ltd. , (iii) M/s. Halda Engineering Co. , and others 4 respectively for obtaining vacant possession of the said premises on the ground that original deft. l had failed to pay rent for a period of six months and for unlawful subletting the premises. The trial court decreed the suit against deft. l. On appeal the decree against original deft. l was confirmed and the decree of dismissal against defts. 2 to 4 was also confirmed. Against that order appellant preferred Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the decree against the deft. 1 and the order passed by the trial court dismissing the suit against others was also reversed by passing a decree against original defts. 2,3 and 4. Against that judgment and decree M/s. Halda Engg. filed special leave petition before this Court. That petition was dismissed on 3th May, 1984 with a direction that decree shall not be executed on or before 31. 12. 84 on condition that petitioner shall file an undertaking on the terms stated therein. For some reason or other the said decree has not been executed until an application was filed under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code and in that application the Court passed an order on 9. 9. 1991 for execution of the decree and for delivery of possession. The present respondent obstructed the delivery of possession on the ground that he was in possession of the property.
( 3 ) PENDING Obstruction Application, respondent filed Declaratory Suit in the Court of small causes of Bombay for a declaration of his tenancy rights by contending that he was a tenant of the premises since 1973 through M/s. Halda Engg. Co. In the said suit, the present appellant (judgment creditor) appeared and indicated the fact that how the decree for eviction granted in his favour had not been executed and prayed that possession should be delivered to him immediately and also respondent should be directed to deposit mesne profits from 1. 1. 84 till 30. 6. 86 at the prevailing market rent. The trial courd did not accept the prayer for handing over possession, but directed the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit, that he should pay at the rate of Rs. 443. 93 per month for the said period as mesne profit. The appellant appeal is filed by special leave.
( 4 ) FROM the narration of the facts, though it appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that proceddings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and on occasion became highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay unscupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes long time. In such situation for protecting the interest of judgment creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. In appropriate cases. Court may appoint Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the property to act as an agent of the Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to the plainti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
