Skip to content


Chiranji Lal Vs. Kunwar Prasad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 1134 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1963All249
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 20, Rule 12; Uttar Pradesh Control of Rent and Eviction Act
AppellantChiranji Lal
RespondentKunwar Prasad and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS.N. Kakkar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.P. Gupta, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
tenancy - termination of tenancy - order 20 rule 12 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - tenant refused to vacate premises after termination of tenancy - becomes trespasser and liable to pay mesne profits - rent at controlled rate cannot be made basis for assessing mesne profits - mesne profits to be assessed at reasonable market value of the premises. - - all his pleas were rejected and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent as well as mesne profits passed against him......the suit. all his pleas were rejected and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent as well as mesne profits passed against him. he has now come to his court in second appeal.2. learned counsel for the appellant stated that the decree for ejectment and arrears of rentwas not challenged, but the appellant objected to the rate of mesne profits which had been fixed at rs. 60/- per mensem. learned counsel pointed out that the controlled rent of the accommodation was rs. 22/5/- inclusive of taxes and the landlord was not entitled to mesne profits at a rate higher than that which he would have obtained from anothertenant.3. i do not agree. when a tenant refused to vacate the accommodation after his tenancy is terminated, he becomes trespasser and liable to pay the landlord mesne profits......
Judgment:

S.S. Dhavan, J.

1. This is a tenant's second appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Bulandshahr awarding the landlord mesne profits against the appellant at the rate of Rs. 60/- per mensem. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for the ejectment of the appellant Chiranji Lal on two grounds--namely, that he had defaulted in paymentof rent and illegally sub-let a portion of the accommodation without the consent of the landlord. The plaintiffs served on the appellant a notice terminating the tenancy in which- he was warned that if he did not vacate the accommodation within one month he would be liable to pay for the use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per mensem. He refused to vacate and contested the suit. All his pleas were rejected and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent as well as mesne profits passed against him. He has now come to his Court in Second Appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the decree for ejectment and arrears of rentwas not challenged, but the appellant objected to the rate of mesne profits which had been fixed at Rs. 60/- per mensem. Learned counsel pointed out that the controlled rent of the accommodation was Rs. 22/5/- inclusive of taxes and the landlord was not entitled to mesne profits at a rate higher than that which he would have obtained from anothertenant.

3. I do not agree. When a tenant refused to vacate the accommodation after his tenancy is terminated, he becomes trespasser and liable to pay the landlord mesne profits. These are to be assessed according to the reasonable market value of the premises. If the rent represents a fair value, mesne profits may be assessed at the amount of the rent, but if the real value is higher than the rent, mesne profits must be assessed at a higher value. I cannot accept learned counsel's argument that this value should be equal to the controlled rent and no more. The U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act was passed for the benefit of tenants and not trespassers. After a tenant has lost his status and become a trespasser, he becomes liable to pay mesne profits at the fair market value of the premises as if the Control of Rent and Eviction Act had not been passed. The rent fixed or controlled by that Act is for the benefit of the tenants, but does not represent the real value of the accommodation and cannot be considered while assessing the rental value of the property for the purpose of assessing the rate of mesne profits which a trespasser has to pay. (4) Learned counsel cited a decision of Denning, J., in Clifton Securities Ltd. v. Huntley, 1948 (2) All ER 283 in which the learned Judgemade the following observation as a guide for calculating the rate of mesne profits in such case:

'At what rate are the mesne profits' to be assessed? When the rent represents the fair value of the premises, mesne profits are assessed at theamount of the rent, but, if the real value is higherthan the rent, then the mesne profits must be assessed at the higher value. In this case, the real value of the premises at the material time was 300 a year and the mesne profits are to be taken at thatrate.'

I am afraid this case is against the appellant, for the learned Judge made a distinction between therental value and the real value of the accommodation. I do not think that the rent at the controlled rate can be the basis for assessing mesne profits against the trespasser.

5. The learned District Judge assessed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60/- per mensem. He considered the rent of the shops in the vicinity, including the significant fact that the appellant himself had let a quarter of the accommodation on Rs. 20/- per month. I think there is not the slightest reason for interfering with the assessment of the lower Court.

6. This appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //