Prakash Gupta, J.

Heard on the stay application and the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff-landlord for allowing the mesne profit @ Rs.1 lac p.m.

2. A suit for eviction was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on ground of denial of title against which the present first appeal was filed. The appeal was admitted on 11/09/2008 and an interim stay was granted in favour of the appellant.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff Sh. S.C. Gupta that the DLC rate of commercial premises situated in Chaura Rasta is Rs.3,39,190/- per sq.m. In this regard, he has relied upon the report issued by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur-6. It is submitted that the disputed shop is divided into three shops and the appellant and his brothers are running a separate businesses in each shop. The defendant is paying only a meager amount of rent Rs.8.50 per month. In these circumstances, the appellant may be directed to pay mesne profit for the use and occupation of the shop in question @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date of the decree. He has placed reliance on (2005) 1 SCC 705 Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 489 Anderson Wright & Co. v. Amar Nath Roy and Others, 2007 (4) WLC (Raj.) 524 Datu mal & others v. Seth Madan Gopal & Ors. & (2005) 11 SCC 279 Charanjit Lal Mehra and Others v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt) and Another.

4. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sh. N.K. Maloo, has submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been admitted. The appellant is the owner of the suit premises. On the basis of the Patta granted by Thakur Devi Singh on 22/02/1941, the shop is an old one and no repairs and renovation have been made. It is also submitted that the size of the suit shop is only 8'.7" x 6'.7" i.e. 56 square feet. It is submitted that the respondent is required to file an application under Section 6 of the Rajathan Rent Control Act of 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001') for revision of the rent. The plaintiff is not entitled to more than three times of the present rent as mesne profit. He has placed reliance on (2008) 7 SCC 589 Niyas Ahmad Khan v. Mahmood Rahmatallah Khan and Ors.

5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents submitted along with the application.

6. In my view, it is no ground to refuse the mesne profit when the trial Court gave a finding that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. I find no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent-plaintiff should file an application under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 for revision of rent because the plaintiff is claiming mesne profit after passing of the decree under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950.

7. In Datu Mal and Others (supra) it has been observed that the determination of the amount of mesne profit depends on the facts & circumstance of each case. The size and number of accommodation, location, nature of premises, whether, it is commercial or residential, the place where property is situated, whether it is village or city or metropolitan city etc., may be the guiding factors in an individual case for determining the mesne profit.

8. In Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has been held that by granting stay, the appellate Court can exercise equitable discretion and to put the appellant on such reasonable conditions as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree holders for the loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the grant of stay Order.

9. So far as the amount of mesne profit to be fixed in the present case is concerned, the tenant has been paying rent @ Rs.8.50 p.m. since 1941. Admittedly, the suit shop is situated in main Chaura Rasta which is a commercial area in the heart of Jaipur City. Looking to the overall facts of this case which include size of the shop, its location as well as the present rate of