Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN, J.
Yuvraj Singh - Appellant
Versus
Harninder Singh - Respondent
RA-CR 49 of 2024 IN CR-606 of 2024
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Review - Mesne Profits - Civil Procedure Code - The court emphasized that mesne profits should not be paid to the landlord during the pendency of appeals unless special reasons are shown, and any amounts should be deposited in a fixed deposit.
Fact of the Case:
The review application was filed challenging an order that directed the petitioner to pay mesne profits fixed by the Appellate Authority within a month.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review application lacked merit as it was an attempt to reargue the case, and the previous order was based on sound legal principles regarding mesne profits.
Issues: Whether the review application was maintainable and if the order regarding mesne profits should be modified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mesne profits should be deposited and not paid to the landlord during the appeal process, aligning with established legal precedents.
Result: The review application is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000.
JUDGMENT :
Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.
Present review application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 05.02.2024 vide which the petition being CR-606-2024 was disposed off.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the revision petition (CR-606-2024) was filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby mesne profits were fixed and the review applicant-petitioner was directed to pay the same within a period of one month.
3. On 05.02.2024 Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the review applicant-petitioner while Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondent and the following order was passed :
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212 and State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2009 (9) SCC 772. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is willing to deposit the said amount. He, however, prays for one month’s time to deposit the same.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that a perfectly reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority which calls no interference.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under:
“48. Before concluding the decision one more question needs to be addressed: what would be the position if the tenant’s appeal/revision is allowed and the eviction decree is set aside? In that event, naturally, the status quo ante would be restored and the tenant would be entitled to get back all the amounts that he was made to pay in excess of the contractual rent. That being the position, the amount fixed by the court over and above the contractual monthly rent, ordinarily, should not be directed to be paid to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision. The deposited amount, along with the accrued interest, should only be paid after the final disposal to either side depending upon the result of the case. In case for some reason the Court finds it just and expedient that the amount fixed by it should go to the landlord even while the matter is pending, it must be careful to direct payment to the landlord on terms so that in case the final decision goes in favour of the tenant the payment should be made to him without any undue delay or complications.”
6. This Court in the case of Angoori Devi & Ors. Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama, 2016 (5) RCR (Civil) 1043 also held that mesne profits should not be paid to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision unless some special reasons have been shown and the amount should be deposited in a Fixed Deposit/Recurring Deposit.
7. In view of the above, the present revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that mesne profits shall be deposited by the petitioner as directed by the Appellate Authority i.e. on or before 10th day of every Calendar month. The amount so deposited shall be invested in an FDR. The petitioner is granted one month’s time from today for depositing the arrears of mesne profits as calculated by the Appellate Authority. The remaining conditions as imposed by the Appellate Authority shall remain intact.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.”
4. Learned counsel for the review applicant-petitioner has not addressed any argument on the maintainability of the present review application by a new counsel. Rather, he has sought to argue the main petition on merits stating that the admitted rent wa
Mesne profits should be deposited in a fixed deposit during appeals, not paid to landlords, unless special reasons are provided.
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 f....
Review jurisdiction requires a party to be aggrieved and for there to be a mistake apparent on the record to justify corrections in the previous order.
The court reaffirmed that tenants must pay mesne profits equivalent to market rent post-eviction, regardless of ongoing appeals.
Mesne profits can only be claimed from the date of the eviction decree, not from the date of filing the suit, as possession remains lawful until the decree is passed.
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
