Bombay High Court Modifies Mesne Profits Condition in Tenant's Appeal Against Eviction Decree. The court reduced the monthly compensation from Rs. 34,000 to Rs. 10,000 considering the old and dilapidated nature of the suit premises.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 140
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, tenants of a 400 square feet premises in a building over 80 years old at Matunga, challenged an order dated 21 November 2017 passed by the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court had directed them to deposit compensation of Rs. 34,000 per month from the date of the eviction decree (21 September 2016) as a condition for granting interim relief staying execution of the eviction decree. The petitioners argued that the suit premises lacked modern amenities like 24-hour water supply and lift, and could not be compared to premises in new high-rise buildings with modern amenities. They contended that mesne profits should not exceed Rs. 1,000 per month, but without prejudice offered to pay Rs. 8,000 to 10,000 per month. The respondent landlord relied on a leave and license agreement for comparable premises. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found the amount of Rs. 34,000 per month to be on the higher side. Considering the nature and location of the premises, the court modified the condition, directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000 per month as compensation from the date of the eviction decree (21 September 2016). The arrears from September 2016 to November 2018 were to be deposited in four equal monthly installments starting from 1 December 2018, and future compensation was to be paid by the 10th of each month. The court clarified that this order was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties and that the trial court would decide the quantum of mesne profits independently.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Interim Stay Condition - Section 144 CPC, Order 41 Rule 5 CPC - The Appeal Court directed tenant to deposit Rs. 34,000 per month as compensation from the date of eviction decree as a condition for stay of execution. The High Court found the amount excessive considering the nature of the suit premises (400 sq ft, old building, no lift, no 24-hour water supply) and modified it to Rs. 10,000 per month from the date of the eviction decree, payable from November 2018. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appeal Court's direction to deposit compensation of Rs. 34,000 per month from the date of eviction decree as a condition for stay of execution is excessive and requires modification.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court modified the condition, directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000 per month as compensation from the date of eviction decree (21 September 2016). Arrears from September 2016 to November 2018 to be deposited in four equal monthly installments starting 1 December 2018. Future compensation to be paid by 10th of each month. The order is without prejudice to rights and contentions of parties, and the trial court to decide mesne profits independently.

Law Points

  • Mesne profits
  • compensation for use and occupation
  • interim stay condition
  • tenant's appeal
  • eviction decree
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (11) 27

WRIT PETITION NO.537 OF 2018

2018-11-27

M. S. Sonak, J.

Mrs. Vasanti Dighe for Petitioners, Mr. Jaydeep Deo for Respondent No. 1

Chandaben Jayantilal Udani (since deceased through legal heirs)

Hansa Villa Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the condition imposed by the Appeal Court for grant of interim stay of execution of eviction decree.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought modification of the condition to deposit compensation of Rs. 34,000 per month from the date of eviction decree.

Filing Reason

The Appeal Court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 34,000 per month as compensation from the date of eviction decree as a condition for stay of execution.

Previous Decisions

Eviction decree dated 21 September 2016; Appeal Court order dated 21 November 2017 imposing condition of deposit of Rs. 34,000 per month.

Issues

Whether the compensation of Rs. 34,000 per month directed by the Appeal Court is excessive and requires modification.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the suit premises are 400 sq ft in an 80-year-old building without lift or 24-hour water supply, and mesne profits should not exceed Rs. 1,000 per month, but offered Rs. 8,000-10,000 without prejudice. Respondent landlord relied on leave and license agreement for comparable premises to justify Rs. 34,000 per month.

Ratio Decidendi

The amount of mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation must be reasonable and proportionate to the nature, location, and amenities of the suit premises. An excessive condition for stay of execution may be modified by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioners – tenant challenges order dated 21st November, 2017 made by the Appeal Court to the extent such order directs the Petitioners to deposit compensation of Rs. 34,000/ p.m. from the date of eviction decree i.e. 21st September, 2016 as a condition for grant of interim reliefs staying the execution of the eviction decree. Considering the nature of the suit premises, the amount of Rs. 34,000/ per month appears to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the condition imposed by the Appeal Court is modified by directing the Petitioners to deposit compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ per month from the date of the eviction decree i.e. 21st September, 2016.

Procedural History

Eviction decree passed on 21 September 2016. Appeal filed by tenant. Appeal Court on 21 November 2017 granted interim stay of execution subject to deposit of Rs. 34,000 per month from date of decree. Tenant filed writ petition challenging the condition. High Court modified the condition on 27 November 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 144, Order 41 Rule 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Assessment Against Building Contractors in Sales Tax Case: Supply of Materials in Works Contract Not a Taxable Sale. Entry 48, List II of Government of India Act, 1935 Did Not Authorize Tax on Building Contractors as No Sale of ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Additional FSI Approval as Abuse of Process. Court finds lack of bonafides and imposes costs of Rs. 5,00,000 for misuse of public interest litigation jurisdiction.