Jabalpur , Dated : 04 /01/2022 Mrs. Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel with Shri Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Siddharth Radhelal Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.4663/2021, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C. for appropriate directions filed on behalf of the respondent/defendant as well as I.A.No.9149/2021, an application for passing appropriate orders: deferment of I.A.No.4663/2021 till pronouncement of judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C)

No.13834/2021 filed on behalf of the appellants.

The respondent/defendant instituted a regular civil suit for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a), (c) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.10.2007 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. While doing so, the trial Court specifically recorded a finding that the contractual rent of the premises in question is Rs.4,300/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, appellant/tenant filed the present appeal. This Court vide order dated 09.11.2007 was pleased to stay the decree regarding delivery of possession and vide order dated 12.03.2008, the appeal was admitted for final hearing. During pendency of the present appeal, I.A.No.4663/2021 has been filed claiming mesne profit on the basis of alleged prevailing market rate of the property in question. The same is being claimed from the year 2007-08 to 2020-21 under Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C.

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the decree of eviction stands in favour of the respondent. The appellant is no more a tenant, therefore, apart from paying the agreed rental amount, he is also liable to pay the ‘mesne profit’ at the applicable market rates to the answering respondent. It is also submitted that the property in question today is a prime property admeasuring total of 4954 sq. ft. plot area 2162 sq. ft. builtup area situated in the prime locality i.e. house bearing No.E-5/63 Arera Colony, Bhopal. The answering respondents have been fighting for more than 20 years now and she has crossed the age of 65 years and her husband is above 80 years. Both of them are suffering from multiple serious ailment and undergoing regular medical treatment for the same. At this late stage of their life, the respondents have no alternative residential accommodation in Bhopal, therefore, they cannot be denied the benefit of self owned accommodation due to prolonged pendency of the present proceedings. The bonafide need of the answering respondent has been duly established before the lower Court. In such as situation, the ‘mesne profit’ cannot be denied to the respondents.

To buttress the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents referred the Apex Court’s Judgment in the case of Anderson Wright and Co. Vs. Amar nath Roy and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC

489 para 5, 6 and 7 are reproduced as under:-

“5. As held by this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P)

Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 705] , once a decree for eviction has been passed, in the event of execution of decree for eviction being stayed, the appellants can be put on such reasonable terms, as would in the opinion of the appellate court reasonably compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree by the grant of stay in the event of the appeal being dismissed. It has also been held that with effect from the date of decree of eviction, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant. While determining the quantum of the amount so receivable by the landlord, the landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent which was prevalent prior to the date of decree.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants cannot be held liable to pay anything more than the standard rent