Point of Law : Owner of the property is required to be compensated by awarding mesne profit. This has to be realistic and in tune with the present market rent. However, there is no material with this Court based on which the present market rent can be ascertained.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Tejas P.Satta, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd November, 2017 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 in Chamber Summons below Exh. 19 wherein, learned Judge partly allowed the Chamber Summons of the petitioner by directing the respondent to deposit sum of Rs.200/- per month as mesne profit instead of monthly contractual sum of Rs.800/-. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 in chamber summons below Exhibit 19(Annexure “H”).

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an order and/or direction directing the respondent to pay a monthly sum of Rs.800/- to the petitioner as mesne profits during the pendency and final disposal of the Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 pending before the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petitioner, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 in chamber summons below Exh.19 (Annexure “H”).”

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that plaintiff, being owner of the suit premises, filed Civil Suit No. 82 of 2017 against the respondent-original defendant for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit through his father and Power of Attorney namely Ashok Kumar Sharma. The suit premises being two room admeasuring 10/10 ft. situated at Gorani Chali, Opp. Vanzara Chali, Roshni Cinema, Dharamnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. That, the petitioner has entered into rent agreement on 28th January, 2014 with the respondent in respect of the suit premises for the monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- per month for a period of 11 months 29 days. It is further submitted that within two months from the date of execution of this rent agreement, the respondent returned back one room to the petitioner as they did not need it anymore. That, remaining one room for monthly rent of Rs.800/- was still retained by the respondent and even till today, they are using this remaining 10/10 ft. room. That, after two months of execution of the rent agreement, no rent was paid by the respondent- defendant. Therefore, suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises and mesne profit etc. That, written statement was filed by the defendant contenting that no rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014 was executed between the parties and defendant is residing as tenant in the suit premises since last 15-20 years and was paying rent of Rs.200/- per month only. That, on 20th September, 2017, vide Exh. 19, petitioner filed chamber summons seeking direction that the respondent will pay the monthly contractual rent of Rs.800/- as mesne profits till the final disposal of the suit. That, defendant filed his reply on 27th September, 2017 of the chamber summons. That, application was partly allowed by the trial Court after hearing of the parties to the suit and respondent was directed to pay Rs.200/- per month as mesne profit instead of contractual sum of Rs.800/- prayed by the petitioner. That, impugned order passed by the trial Court is completely against the evidence on record. That, ownership of the suit property was never denied by the respondent before trial Court. That, rent agreement was executed between the parties on 28th January, 2014 with the signature of the respondent which was not considered by the learned trial Court nor any discussion was made in the impugned order. That, respondent has simply denied the rent agreement dated 28th January, 2014, no explanation was forwarded whatever rega