The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for the passing of a decree for possession and mesne profits should be followed only when a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for mesne profits. The judgment also emphasizes the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the determination of mesne profits and compensation for use and occupation of premises.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - CM-8543-CII-2022

1. This is an application for impleading the legal representatives of respondent No.1 namely, S. Brahmgyan Singh Majithia, who is stated to have died.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the legal representatives of respondent No.1 namely, S. Brahmgyan Singh Majithia, mentioned in para No.3 of the application are impleaded as a party. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Vakalatnama signed by the LRs of respondent No.1 is already appended along with the application.

CR-522-2019

3. The challenge in the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure P-4) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for stay of judgement and decree dated 20.11.2017 has been allowed subject to payment of Rs.90,000/- per month as mesne profits. The impugned order disposes off two applications - one moved by the petitioners herein for staying the operation of judgment and decree dated 20.11.2017 and the other application moved by the respondents for fixing the mesne profits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that mesne profit cannot be ordered once the same has not been prayed for in the plaint. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganapati Madhav Sawant (dead) Through his LRS Vs. Dattur Madhav Sawant [2008(2) RCR (Civil) 175] and Union of India and Others Vs. M/s Banwari Lal & Sons (P) Ltd. [2004(2) RCR (Civil) 580] to contend that a procedure has been prescribed under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for the passing of a decree for possession and mesne profits. It is further the contention that the procedure as laid down in Order 20 Rule 12 CPC has not been followed in the present case. It further argued that no enquiry was made and an order fixing the mesne profit has been passed sans the enquiry. Learned counsel would further contend that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in the present case and the case is based on the premise that there existed a relationship of licensor and licensee.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents have contended that the mesne profits have been assessed by the Court while conditionally staying the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2017. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2009(2) RCR (Rent) 246]; M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. [2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212] and M/s Martin & Harris Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Mehta & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.4646-47 of 2022] to contend that after the passing of a decree of eviction, the landlord would be entitled to mesne profits or compensation for depriving him of the use of the premises.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2017 the defendant-petitioners have been directed to vacate the suit property in question and to deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiff-respondents within a period of two months. In appeal preferred by the defendantpetitioners, the lower Appellate Court stayed the operation of the judgement and decree dated 20.11.2017 subject to payment of Rs.90,000/- per month as mesne profits on the basis of the lease deeds produced by the plaintiffrespondents and on the basis of the fact that the suit property measuring 4 kanal 18 marlas is situated at main Albert Road, near Railway Station, Amritsar, which is a commercial area. The lower Appellate Court, relying upon the judgment in the case of M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), directed that the stay would be conditional to the payment of Rs.90,000/- per month as mesne profits. Aggrieved by the said order