[2026:RJ-JD:12194]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5073/2026 Jabir Hussain, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Bahla Near Bohra Masjid Bhilwara ----Petitioner Versus Imran Hussain, R/o Sanganeri Gate Bohra Colony Bhilwara ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi & Mr. Mahendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Somani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

13/03/2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Bhilwara in Civil Appeal (Rent) No.15/2025 (Jabir Hussain vs. Imran Hussain), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) has been allowed, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits one time amount of ₹1,50,000/- and continues to pay mesne profits at the rate of three times the monthly rent of ₹12,000/-, i.e. ₹36,000/- per month during pendency of the appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the stay application preferred by the petitioner has been allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, yet the condition imposed therein directing the petitioner to deposit ₹1,50,000/- and further to pay mesne profits at the rate of three times the monthly rent is wholly arbitrary, harsh and without any supporting material on record. It is submitted that neither any reply was filed by the respondent to the stay application nor any material was placed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal to demonstrate that the disputed premises could fetch rent equivalent to three times the admitted rent. It is further contended that the Appellate Tribunal has imposed the aforesaid condition without assigning cogent reasons and without examining the relevant factors which are required to be considered while exercising jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC.

4. It is also argued that the direction to pay mesne profits at the rate of three times the monthly rent is based upon Section 20 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and such provision can be invoked only after the judgment of the Rent Tribunal attains finality and execution proceedings are initiated. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal could not have imposed such a condition in absence of any determination regarding prevailing market rent or any material to justify such enhancement. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order practically compels the petitioner to vacate the premises even before adjudication of the appeal, thereby defeating the statutory right of appeal.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Vijay Vyas vs. Abhishek Goyal & Ors.

reported in 2012 CJ (Rent Control) 76

6. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord supported the impugned order and submitted that once a decree for eviction has been passed by the Rent Tribunal, the tenant cannot be permitted to continue in possession without compensating the landlord appropriately. It is submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion while granting stay of execution subject to payment of mesne profits and such condition is intended to balance the equities between the parties.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Kapil Chandla vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota & Ors. reported in 2016(1) WLC 386 and Mustaq Malawat vs.

Jitendra Gidwani reported in 2021(1) RCR (Rent) 265

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The limited issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the