IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO Nos.32, 34, 35, 200 and 201 of 2010 Decided on: June 18, 2010 CMPMO No. 32/2010 Shahid Ahmad Versus Bhupinder Kishore CMPMO No.34/2010 Om Parkash Versus Bhupinder Kishore CMPMO No.35/2010 Chander Shekher Versus Bhupender Kishore CMPMO No. 200/2010 Anwar Khan Versus Bhupinder Kishore CMPMO No.201/2010 Subhash Chand Versus Bhupinder Kishore Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, in all the petitions. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions. Surjit Singh, J. (oral) By this common order, five CMPMOs, particulars whereof are given in the heading of this judgment, are being disposed of, as the facts and points involved in all of them are similar and the respondent in all the petitions is also the same. 2. Respondent owns five shops in Nahan Town of Sirmaur District. Nahan is a sleepy town and commercial activity Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… has not seen any increase, despite economic growth in other areas. Petitioners were inducated by the respondent as tenants in very small sized shops, during the years 1987-88 and 1988- 89 at different rates. Rates varied from Rs.300/- to Rs.450/- per month. Petitioners are running petty businesses like tailoring, confectionary, shoe-making/repairing and green grocery. 3. Respondent filed eviction petitions against all the petitioners before the Rent Controller, on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for the purpose of reconstruction. Rent Controller allowed all the five petitions. Petitioners have filed appeals before Appellate Authority. They approached the Appellate Authority to stay eviction during the pendency of their appeals. Stay orders have been passed, but the petitioners have been ordered to pay mesne profits to the respondent at rates about ten times, more than the rates of rent. Petitioners are aggrieved by this condition imposed in the order of stay. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that when a tenant has been ordered to be evicted, his status is no better than that of a trespasser and, therefore, he is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate prevalent at the time of passing of the order of eviction. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a number of judgments. Citations are as under: (i) Niyas Ahmad Khan Vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan and another, (2008) 7 SCC 539, …3… (ii) Pradeep Kumar Vs. Hajari Lal, (2008) 3 SCC 299, (iii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (iv) State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Super Max International Private Limited and others, (2009) 9 SCC 772 (v) Sadhu Ram Vs. Parminder Singh, (2008) SCC 132 6. All the five judicial precedents, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, pertain to commercial properties situated in big cities, like Mumbai, Allahabad, Alwar, New Delhi and Chandigarh, where trade and commerce has touched great heights and the tenants have minted money by running their businesses in tenanted premises. 7. In State of Maharashtra and another (supra), property had initially been leased out on monthly rent of Rs.5236/- in the year 1966. Its mesne profits were worked out at R.5,40,000/- per month. Property was situated in Mumbai. 8. In Atma Ram Proprieties (P) Limited case (supra), property was leased for Rs.372/- per month in the year 1944 and mesne profits were determined at Rs.15,000/- per month. Property was situated in New Delhi. 9. In Pradeep Kumar’s case (supra), property was situated in Alwar (Rajasthan). Lease was created around the year 1990 on monthly rent of Rs.600/-. Mesne profits were determined at Rs.4000/-, a month. 10. In Niyas Ahmad Khan’s case (supra), premises were leased out in the year 1985 on monthly rent of Rs.150/- …4… and mesne profits were determined at Rs.12050/- per month. Premises were situated in Allahabad. 11. In Sadhu Ram’s case, property was situated in Chandigarh. It was leased out on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. Mesne profits were determined at Rs.9600/- per month by the High Court, but the Supreme Court reduced the same to Rs.5000/- per month. However, it is not ascertainable from the judgment as to when the lease was created. 12. In the present case, as already noticed, Nahan is a Town which has not developed in trade and commerce, despite economic boom. Otherwise also, the premises leased out to the petitioners are very small sized, their area ranging from 50 square feet to 60 square feet, approximately and the petitioners are running very petty businesses. 13. Looking to all the aforesaid facts, I feel that as on the date of the passing of eviction orders, the rental value of the premises, occupied by the petitioners, could not have been more than three times the rent at which the premises were initially leased out to the petitioners. 14. In the case of Sahid Ahmed, petitioner in CMPMO No.32/2010, premises were initially let out at Rs.350/- per month. So, in his case rate of mesne profits should be Rs.1050/- per month. In the case of Om Parkash, petitioner in CMPMO No.34/2010, initial rent was Rs.300/- and, therefore, mesne profits should be 900/- per month. In the case of Chander Shekhar, petitioner in CMPMO No.35/2010, initial rent was Rs.400/- per month and, so, mesne profits should be …5… Rs.1200/- per month. In the case of Subhash Chand, petitioner in CMPMO No.201/2010 initial rate of rent was Rs.450/- per month and, hence, the rate of mesne profits should be Rs.1350/- per month and in the case of Anwar Khan, petitioner in CMPMO No.200/2010, initial rate of rent being Rs.440/- per month, rate of mesne profits should be Rs.1320/- per month. 15. In view of the above discussion, all the five petitions are allowed and it is ordered that condition imposed in the orders of Appellate Authority, regarding payment of mesne profits, shall stand modified in the aforesaid terms. In case the petitioners deposit the arrears of mesne profits at the aforesaid rates (from the date of order of eviction to the date of the deposit) within four weeks and continue to pay the future mesne profits by 10th day of each month, order of eviction against them passed by the Rent Controller, shall not be executed. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. June 18, 2010(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.