Case: DAMODAR LAL LOYA Vs. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF MADAN LAL

A.K. Sikri, J. - We have heard the matter finally. Leave granted. 2. The facts which are required to be taken note of are briefly stated herein: 3. The matter pertains to fixation of standard rent in respect of property situated at Bhadada Bagh, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The appellant herein, who is the owner and landlord of the suit property, had let out the same to one Madan Lal (since deceased), who is the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein. The appellant filed a suit for fixation of standard rent in the year 2001 on the ground that for the suit property, which was in excess of 15,500 square feet in the heart of Bhilwara city in Rajasthan, the rent paid by the respondents was too meagre. It may be noted that the respondent came into possession of the suit property some time in the year 1957. 4. It may also be noted, by way of background, that the appellant had filed eviction proceedings against the respondent way back in the year 1974. Though the trial Court had dismissed the said eviction suit, in appeal there-against, the eviction was ordered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent, some time in the year 2001. Against that, first appeal of the respondent was dismissed. The respondent filed second appeal in the High Court which was registered as Civil Second Appeal No. 251 of 2001. 5. After passing of the said eviction order, the appellant filed the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 25 of 2002 for fixation of the standard rent. This Suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 20.02.2013 fixing the rent at Rs. 5,000/- per month from November, 2001. Not satisfied with this fixation of the rent at that rate, the appellant filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge. This appeal was allowed and the standard rent was fixed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 25.02.2015 at the rate of Rs. 2.50/- per square feet which comes to Rs. 38,750/- per month. 6. The appellant was still not satisfied with the said fixation of standard rent and wanted further enhancement. Therefore, he filed Civil Revision Petition No. 88 of 2015 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. Even the respondent challenged the same order by filing revision petition there-against. Both these revisions petitions have been decided by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2015. 7. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the respondents had made a statement at the Bar that they were ready to vacate the premises in question and were willing to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises on or before 30.06.2016. Having regard to this statement and noticing that since the respondents were willing to vacate the premises, the High Court had disposed of all three cases with the following directions: (A) The defendants-LRs of Madan Lal shall clear off arrears of rent by depositing 50% of the total arrears of rent due as determined by the first appellate court, after adjustment of the amount already deposited by them, as directed to be deposited by the order dated 06.05.2015 of this Court, within a period of three months; (B) The defendants are also directed, as they have undertaken, to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the entire land/plot in question to the plaintiff on or before 30.06.2016; (C) The defendants shall continue to pay monthly rent or mesne profits, as they are paying as of now, terms of the order of the first appellate court from November, 2015 till the date of handing over the vacant possession before 30.06.2015; (D) In view of the aforesaid, the substantial questions of law framed above in second appeal are not required to be answered on merits; and (E) This order will not form precedent for any other similar case between these parties or other parties, with same common party in this case. 8. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant on a short ground, viz., merely because respondent No. 1 agreed to vacate the premises was no reason for the High Court to deny the benefit of mesne profits. It was submitted that the appellant had filed the revision petition as he wanted further enhancement in the standard rent. On the contrary, by the impugned order, the High Court has mentioned that only 50 per cent of the standard rent as fixed by the Additional District Judge (which was an interim order) would be payable and the revision petition was not decided on merits. 9. We find substance in this argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The facts noted above would disclose that there was a decree of eviction in favour of the appellant and against that the respondent had filed second appeal. Merely because the respondent agreed to vacate the premises and give the vacant possession, meaning thereby that they did not press their second appeal against the decree of eviction, would not mean that the issue of standard rent was not to be decided by the High Court on merits. By the impugned order, the appellant is deprived of the fruits of the order passed even by the learned Additional District Judge. No reasons thereof are given except the fact that the respondents agreed to vacate the premises.

Decision:
1[ds]On the contrary, by the impugned order, the High Court has mentioned that only 50 per cent of the standard rent as fixed by the Additional District Judge (which was an interim order) would be payable and the revision petition was not decided on merits.9. We find substance in this argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The facts noted above would disclose that there was a decree of eviction in favour of the appellant and against that the respondent had filed second appeal. Merely because the respondent agreed to vacate the premises and give the vacant possession, meaning thereby that they did not press their second appeal against the decree of eviction, would not mean that the issue of standard rent was not to be decided by the High Court on merits. By the impugned order, the appellant is deprived of the fruits of the order passed even by the learned Additional District Judge. No reasons thereof are given except the fact that the respondents agreed to vacate the premises.