Important Point
Tenant is bound to make payment of rent on time.

1. Heard Ld. Advocates Mr. Vivek Mapara for the petitioner and Mr. Nisarg Desai for Nanavati Associates for respondent no. 1, whereas Ms. G.R. Vijayalakshmi for the respondent no. 2.

2. Since the matter has been dragged at admission stage from the year 2010 till date, both the parties have agreed to dispose it of finally. Therefore, heard all the learned advocates at length.

3. RULE. Service of rule is waived by learned advocates Mr. Nisarg Desai for Nanavati Associates for the respondent no. 1 and Ms. Vijayalakshmi for the respondent no. 2.

4. The petitioner herein is plaintiff, whereas respondents are original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 403/4006 pending before the Civil Court, Jamnagar. The parties are referred in their capacity before the Civil Court. It is undisputed fact that the plaintiff is owner of the suit premises, whereas the defendant no. 1 is original tenant pursuant to leave and licence agreement in its favour, which has in turn handed over the possession of such rented premises to its employee – defendant no. 2. Therefore, basically there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 directly, but defendant no. 2 is holding the premises as employee of defendant no. 1 company, which has, pursuant to terms and conditions of services, permitted the defendant no. 2 to stay in the suit premises which is owned by the plaintiff. It is also undisputed fact that the rent of the premises is payable by the defendant no. 1 company to the landlady considering it as a service condition for defendant no. 2 to have residential accommodation during his service with the defendant no. 1 company.

5. Copy of leave and licence agreement is on record, which confirms that the defendant no. 1 has taken the possession of the suit premises for 12 months commencing from 1/3/2001 and that the defendant no. 1 has to pay in-all Rs.4,500/- per month towards usage charges i.e., rent plus service charges to the plaintiff.

6. It seems that thereafter, there was a dispute between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 regarding service conditions of the defendant no. 2, which resulted into end of the services of the defendant no. 2 with the defendant no. 1 company and thereby practically defendant no. 2 has to hand-over the vacant possession to the defendant no. 1 and at the end of term of leave and licence agreement, defendant no. 1 has to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff being landlady. However, as emerging from the record and as submitted by the respondents – defendants, the defendant no. 2 has raised an industrial dispute so far as his service conditions are concerned and that issue had been dragged upto this Court and that pursuant to such legal proceedings, it seems that the defendant no. 2 has continued to occupy the suit premises. However, the fact remains that neither the defendant no. 1 nor the defendant no. 2 has paid the usage charges plus service charges i.e. rent to the plaintiff – landlady.

7. Therefore, the plaintiff has no option but to institute Regular Civil Suit No. 403/2006 before the Civil Court at Jamnagar for getting vacant possession of the rented premises, so also the mesne profit or rent [service charges plus usage charges] of the suit premises till defendants hand over the peaceful vacant possession to her. The suit was filed on 1/3/2006 wherein rent is claimed from 1/12/2001till 30/7/2005 as rent and thereafter from 1/8/2005 till filing of the suit as a mesne profit considering the fact that the plaintiff has served several notices to the defendants to pay such dues, but when the defendants have failed to pay rent, ultimately plaintiff has terminated the lease and tenancy and, therefore, from the date of notice of such termination being 5/8/2005, such amount is claimed as a mesne profit.

8. Therefore, the fact remains that the defendants are occupying the suit premises without paying any usage charges plus service charges i.e. rent or mesne profit sin