M/S. MARTIN & HARRIS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. versus RAJENDRA MEHTA & ORS. on 6 July 2022

38

[2022] 16 S.C.R.

AM/S. MARTIN & HARRIS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

v.

RAJENDRA MEHTA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4646-47 of 2022)

BJULY 06, 2022

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – ss.20, 32 – RajasthanPremises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Old Act) – Suitor proceedings initiated under the Old Act, pending on the date ofCcommencement of the New Act (2001 Act) – Grant of mesne profits –s.20 of the New Act, if applicable – Held: s.20 deals with theexecution of the orders of the Rent Tribunal in the manner soprescribed – Sub-sec. (3) makes it clear that if the tenant does notvacate premises within three months of the date of issue of certificateDfor recovery of the possession, in that event he is liable to pay mesneprofits at the rate of three times the rent in case the premises is letout for commercial purposes, as applicable in the facts of the presentcase – Further, sub-sec.(3) of s.32 (Repeal and savings) has beengiven overriding effect by which the applications or suit or otherproceedings filed under the Old Act pending on the date ofEcommencement of the New Act before any Court shall be continuedand disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Old Act asthe Old Act had continued in force and the New Act had not beenenacted – Thus, the suit or proceedings, if any, pending on the dateof notification issued for applicability of the New Act, suchFproceedings would continue under the Old Act and New Act has noapplication – Therefore, High Court rightly rejected the contentionof the appellant that maximum payable mesne profits u/s.20 of theNew Act can be three times of the rent in case the premises is let outfor commercial purposes, while dismissing the review petition – Itrightly held that s.20, by which three times mesne profits to theGstandard rent was made permissible for the suit or proceedingsstarted under the New Act, has no application in suit or proceedingsinitiated under the Old Act and pending on the date ofcommencement of the New Act – Reasoning given is in consonanceto the spirit of s.32 of the New Act – Further, the amount of mesne H

profits has also been rightly decided by the High Court – Order ofHigh Court does not warrant any interference.

Rent Control and Eviction – Decree of eviction – Entitlementof landlord to mesne profits – Held: After passing of the decree ofeviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlordis entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from theuse of the premises.

Rent Control and Eviction – Determination of mesne profit –Basis of – Discussed.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 The previous proceedings bearing No.61 of2002 filed under Sections 6 and 7 was under the Old Act, whereinthe standard rent was fixed Rs.45,000/- per month to the suitproperty. During those proceedings, the present suit seekingdecree of eviction was filed by Plaintiffs under the provisions ofOld Act in November 2002 prior to commencement of the NewAct. Thus, on the date of commencement of the New Act, thepresent suit was pending and vide judgment dated 03.06.2016Trial Court decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal byLower Appellate Court on 10.01.2017. Challenging the judgmentand decree concurrently passed by the two Courts, Second AppealNo.144/2017 has been filed by the Appellants, which has beenadmitted on 14.10.2017 and stay of ejectment passed by the HighCourt which was extended quite a few times. Thereafter, on filingan application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 ofCPC asking mesne profits by Plaintiffs, it was allowed vide orderdated 18.05.2018. Against which the Special Leave Petitionbearing No.19863/2018 filed by Appellants was dismissed aswithdrawn with liberty to file a review petition after noting thesubmissions made before this Court. On perusal of the orderdated 06.08.2018, it is clear that the Appellants raised a plea thatmaximum payable mesne profits as per Section 20 of the NewAct can be three times of the rent in case the premises let out forcommercial purposes. It was said that the standard rent was fixed@ Rs.45,000/- per month as a result of which three times wouldcome to Rs.1,35,000/-, however, the direction of mesne profits@ Rs.2,50,000/- per month by the High Court is unjust. This A

B

CD

EF

G

H

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

ACourt without expressing any opinion with respect to fixing thequantum of mesne profits directed to approach the High Courtby filing the review. On filing the review petition bearing No.95/2018, the appellants have taken the said plea and also stated thatthe Court in the order under review wrongly mentioned the let-outarea as 407 sq. yard including 1200 sq. ft. court yard passage, inBfact, the said area was a common passage for all. Therefore, themesne profit of the said area cannot be determined againstAppellants. The High Court noted that the case in hand shall begoverned by the provisions of the Old Act. The High Courtdismissed the review petition. Section 20 of the New Act dealsCwith the execution of the orders of the Rent Tribunal in the mannerso prescribed. Sub-section (3) makes it clear that if the tenantdoes not vacate premises within three months of the date of issueof certificate for recovery of the possession, in that event he isliable to pay mesne profits at the rate of 2 times the rent in casepremises let out for residential purposes; at the rate of threeDtimes the rent in case of premises let out for commercial purposesas applicable in the facts of the present case. On the said pretext,it is contended that the direction of mesne profits more than threetimes is contrary to the said provisions. The other side contendsthat the New Act has come into force on 01.04.2003 by way ofEnotification published in the Official Gazette. As per Section 32of the New Act, the repeal and savings of the Old Act has beenspecified. Sub-section (3) of Section 32 is relevant, which hasbeen given overriding effect to other provisions by which theapplications or suit or other proceedings filed under the Old Act(Repealed Act) pending on the date of commencement of theFNew Act before any Court shall be continued and disposed of inaccordance with the provisions of the Old Act (Repealed Act) asthe Old Act had continued in force and this Act had not beenenacted. Thus, it is clear that the suit or proceedings, if any,pending on the date of notification issued by the StateGGovernment for applicability of the New Act such proceedingswould continue under the Old Act and New Act has no application.Therefore, the High Court has rightly rejected the contentionwhile dismissing the review petition and rightly held that Section20 of the New Act, by which three times mesne profits to thestandard rent was made permissible for the suit or proceedingsH

started under the New Act, have no application in suit orproceedings initiated under Old Act and pending on the date ofcommencement of New Act. The reasoning given in the orderdated 01.04.2019, while rejecting the review petition by the HighCourt, is perfectly in consonance to the spirit of Section 32 of theNew Act. [Paras 6-8][45-C-G; 46-C-G]

1.2 Before the High Court, while passing the original orderdated 18.05.2018, it was contended by the Appellants that theyare not in possession of 469.92 sq. meter (5058 sq. ft.). The saidissue has been dealt with on the admitted fact in the earlierproceeding between the same parties regarding fixation ofstandard rent in which the parties came before this Court. In theorder Court referring the affidavit of the Appellants filed beforethis Court admitted that the total covered area is 2100 sq. ft. andan open area of 1200 sq. ft. having total area of 407 sq. yards is atenanted premises. The affidavit filed before this Court in previousproceedings if considered by the High Court, now the Appellantsare estopped to take different plea disputing the area of tenancy.Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the High Court do notwarrant any interference. [Para 9][48-H; 49-A-C]

2. After passing the decree of eviction the tenancyterminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesneprofits or compensation depriving him from the use of thepremises. Looking to the fact that the decree of eviction passedby Trial Court on 03.03.2016 has been confirmed in appeal;against which second appeal is pending, however, after stay onbeing asked the direction to pay mesne profits or compensationissued by the High Court is in consonance to the law laid downby this Court, which is just equitable and reasonable. The basisof determination of the amount of mesne profit depends on thefacts and circumstances of each case considering place wherethe property is situated i.e. village or city or metropolitan city,location, nature of premises i.e. commercial or residential areand the rate of rent precedent on which premises can be let outare the guiding factor in the facts of individual case. In the caseat hand, the High Court in the impugned order observed that thetenanted property is located on the main road of New Colony AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Anear Panch Batti which is a commercial area in the heart of JaipurCity. The said finding has been arrived considering thevoluminous documentary record dispelling the plea taken by theAppellants. However, the Court in the facts and circumstancesfound it reasonable to determine Rs.2,50,000/- per month asmesne profit. As per the discussion made hereinabove so far asBthe area of the tenanted premises and the location of the propertyis concerned, the findings of fact have been recorded by the HighCourt, those findings are based on the material brought on recordwhich are neither perverse nor illegal. The amount of mesne profitas fixed @ Rs.2,50,000/- is also just and proper looking at theCspan of time i.e. 10 years from the date of fixing of the standardrent and six year from the date of passing of the decree of eviction.Therefore, the amount of mesne profit has rightly been decidedby the High Court while passing the order impugned. The orderfixing the mesne profit and the order passed on the reviewpetition, filed by the Appellants, are just and proper which do notDwarrant any interference. [Paras 11-13][49-H; 50-B-G]

Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. andAnother (1999) 2 SCC 325 : [1999] 1 SCR 311; AtmaRam Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005)1 SCC 705 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 843; State ofEMaharashtra v. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. andOthers (2009) 9 SCC 772 : [2009] 13 SCR 801 – reliedon.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4646-4647 of 2022.G

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc.Stay Application No. 750 of 2017 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 144of 2017.

H. L. Tiku, Sr. Adv., Ms. Arti Singh, Aakashdeep Singh Roda,Ms. Pooja Singh, Basant Pal Singh, Akshay Singh, Advs. for theAppellants.

Ms. Kheyali Singh, D. K. Devesh, Harsh Singh Rawat, Advs. forthe Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Plaintiffs/Respondents being the owners of the suit propertysituated at Plot No.1, Block No.D-1, Nagar Nigam No.2844 known asKhinduka Bhawan, New Colony, Jaipur filed a suit bearing No.4/2016(9/2002) for eviction, possession, recovery of rent and permanentinjunction. The said suit was filed in November 2002 invoking theProvisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rentand Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as ‘Old Act’). The suitwas decreed vide judgment dated 03.06.2016 passed by Senior CivilJudge No.7, Jaipur. On filing the appeal bearing No.11/2016 beforeAdditional District Judge No.10, Jaipur, it was dismissed on 10.01.2017confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The Second Appeal No.144/2017 was filed challenging both the judgments before the High Courtwhich was admitted vide order dated 14.10.2017 granting stay onejectment. The order of stay was extended time to time. On filing anapplication under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Codeof Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) by the Plaintiffs/Respondents askingmesne profit due to continuation of stay on eviction decree it was decidedvide order dated 18.05.2018. Whereby the appellants were directed topay the mesne profit @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month from the date of filingof the application i.e. 20.12.2017 till disposal of the appeal. The directionshave also been issued to deposit the arrears of mesne profits upto April2018 by depositing the same in the bank account of the Plaintiffs withinsix months, with further direction to pay mesne profits from May 2018consecutively by 15[th] date of every succeeding month. Failing to depositthe amount of mesne profit in future for four months consecutively,Plaintiffs would have right to get execute the decree of eviction. ThePlaintiffs were granted liberty to withdraw the amount subject tofurnishing surety and undertaking to re-deposit the mesne profits sowithdrawn with 9% interest in case they lose in the second appeal. The A

B

CDEF

GH

Asaid order was challenged by filing the Special Leave Petition No.19863/2018 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with libertyto the Appellants to file review petition before the High Court. On filingthe review petition bearing No.95/2018, it was dismissed vide order dated01.04.2019 which led to file the present appeals challenging the orderdated 18.05.2018 as well as the order passed in review dated 01.04.2019Bquestioning the grant of mesne profit.

3. The facts unfolded are that the Plaintiffs purchased the propertythrough six different registered sale deeds executed on 23.12.1985. Byvirtue of those sale deeds, Plaintiffs became the owner of the tenantedpremises. Appellants were tenant to the erstwhile owner and after sellingCthe premises they became tenant of Plaintiffs/Respondents byattornment. Earlier a suit under Section 6 of the Old Act was filed by thePlaintiffs/Respondents against the Appellants bearing No.61 of 2002 fordetermination of the standard rent. During the pendency of the suit anapplication under Section 7 of the Old Act was filed for fixing theDprovisional rent which was decided vide order dated 09.01.2004 fixingprovisional rent @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The said order waschallenged, which was confirmed by the High Court vide order dated18.04.2007. The Appellants had filed a Special Leave Petition bearingNo.9775 of 2007 wherein this Court fixed the ad hoc provisional rent @Rs.60,000/- per month vide order dated 12.11.2007 with direction to theETrial Court to decide the issue of standard rent expeditiously. The TrialCourt vide judgment dated 12.08.2009 decreed the said suit and fixedthe standard rent @ Rs.45,000/- per month. The appeals filed by boththe parties against the said order are pending before the High Court.

4. In the present appeals the order of the High Court directing toFpay the mesne profits @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month with other ancillarydirections have been questioned. It is contended by learned counsel forthe Appellants that as per Section 20 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 (hereinafter referred as ‘New Act’), the maximum amount of mesneprofit may be payable three times of the standard rent in case the premisesGis let out for commercial purposes. It is said the mesne profit, asdetermined by the High Court, is excessive without looking to the yearof construction of premises, location of the property which is on insideroad of colony and also without taking note of the DLC rate, therefore,the order impugned may be set aside and the quantum of mesne profitsmay be revised to three times of the amount of rent making it Rs.1,35,000/H- per month.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Plaintiffs hasstrenuously urged that Section 20 of the New Act do not apply to the suitor proceedings initiated under the Old Act and were pending on the dateof applicability of the New Act i.e. 01.04.2003, notified in the officialgazette. The argument of the Appellants to fix mesne profits only threetime to the standard rent relying the provisions of the New Act is meritless.The High Court said that the suit property is located on the main road ofNew Colony, Jaipur situated in the heart of the City being commercialarea rightly fixed mesne profit. It is also urged that the order passed bythe High Court to fix mesne profit is equitable, just and reasonable witha direction to re-deposit of mesne profits with 9% interest in case ofwithdrawal by Plaintiffs or the Plaintiffs loses in the second appeal. Insuch circumstances, interference in these appeals is not warranted.

6. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of boththe parties, it is not in dispute that in the previous proceedings bearingNo.61 of 2002 filed under Sections 6 and 7 was under the Old Act,wherein the standard rent was fixed Rs.45,000/- per month to the suitproperty. During those proceedings, the present suit seeking decree ofeviction was filed by Plaintiffs under the provisions of Old Act inNovember 2002 prior to commencement of the New Act. Thus, on thedate of commencement of the New Act, the present suit was pendingand vide judgment dated 03.06.2016 Trial Court decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal by Lower Appellate Court on 10.01.2017.Challenging the judgment and decree concurrently passed by the twoCourts, Second Appeal No.144/2017 has been filed by the Appellants,which has been admitted on 14.10.2017 and stay of ejectment passed bythe High Court which was extended quite a few times. Thereafter, onfiling an application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 ofCPC asking mesne profits by Plaintiffs, it was allowed vide order dated18.05.2018. Against which the Special Leave Petition bearing No.19863/2018 filed by Appellants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to filea review petition after noting the submissions made before this Court.The said order dated 06.08.2018 is relevant, therefore, for ready referencereproduced as under:

“Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioners, submits that under Section 20 of the RajasthanRent Control Act, 2001, the maximum that is payable by way ofmesne profits is three times the rent in the case of premises let ABC

D

E

F

G

H

out for commercial purposes. He submits that the standard rentfor the premises has been fixed at Rs.45,000/- as a result of which,three times would amount to a figure of Rs.1,35,000/-. What hasbeen awarded, however, by the High Court is Rs. 2,50,000/- permonth.

A

BWe note this submission and permit the learned Senior Counsel towithdraw this petition and approach the High Court in review.

In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed aswithdrawn.

In the event the review petition is dismissed, liberty is granted toCchallenge the original order as well.”

On perusal of the order, it is clear that the Appellants raised a pleathat maximum payable mesne profits as per Section 20 of the New Actcan be three times of the rent in case the premises let out for commercialpurposes. It was said that the standard rent was fixed @ Rs.45,000/-Dper month as a result of which three times would come toRs.1,35,000/-, however, the direction of mesne profits @ Rs.2,50,000/-per month by the High Court is unjust. This Court without expressingany opinion with respect to fixing the quantum of mesne profits directedto approach the High Court by filing the review.

E

E7. On filing the review petition bearing No.95/2018, the appellantshave taken the said plea and also stated that the Court in the order underreview wrongly mentioned the let-out area as 407 sq. yard including1200 sq. ft. court yard passage, in fact, the said area was a commonpassage for all. Therefore, the mesne profit of the said area cannot beFdetermined against Appellants. The High Court noted that the case inhand shall be governed by the provisions of the Old Act. In the light ofthe said undisputed factual position, it was observed that the argumentregarding applicability of Section 20 of the New Act is misconceived.The Court also observed that in a review petition the Court cannot sit asan Appellate Court over the order under review until an error apparentGon the face of the record has been pointed out. With the said observation,the High Court dismissed the review petition.

8. In the above said facts, the argument advanced by theAppellants in the matter of grant of mesne profit to the extent of threetimes to the standard rent in terms of Section 20 of the New Act isHrequired to be addressed first. Section 20 of the New Act deals with the

execution of the orders of the Rent Tribunal in the manner so prescribed.Sub-section (3) makes it clear that if the tenant does not vacate premiseswithin three months of the date of issue of certificate for recovery of thepossession, in that event he is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of 2times the rent in case premises let out for residential purposes; at therate of three times the rent in case of premises let out for commercialpurposes as applicable in the facts of the present case. On the saidpretext, it is contended that the direction of mesne profits more thanthree times is contrary to the said provisions. The other side contendsthat the New Act has come into force on 01.04.2003 by way of notificationpublished in the Official Gazette. As per Section 32 of the New Act, therepeal and savings of the Old Act has been specified. For the said purposeSection 32 is relevant, therefore, it is reproduced as thus:

“32. Repeal and savings. - (1) The Rajasthan Premises (Controlof Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950) shall standrepealed with effect from the date notified under Sub-sec. (3) ofSec. 1 of this Act.

(2) The repeal under Sub-section (1) shall not affect,- (a) anything dub done or suffered under the enactment sorepealed; or (b) any right, title, privilege, obligation or liability acquired orincurred under the enactment so repealed; or

(c) any fine, penalty or punishment incurred or suffered underthe provisions of the enactment so repealed.

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal under Sub-section (1).

(a) all applications, suits or other proceedings under the repealedAct pending on the date of commencement of this Act beforeany Court shall be continued and disposed of, in accordancewith the provisions of the repealed Act, as if the repealed Acthad continued in force and this Act had not been enacted.However, the plaintiff within a period of one hundred and eightydays of coming into force of this Act shall he entitled to withdrawany suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending under therepealed Act with liberty to file fresh petition in respect of thesubject matter of such suit or appeal or any other proceedingunder and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

for the purposes of limitation such petition shall, if it is filedwithin a period of two hundred and seventy days from thecommencement of this Act, be deemed to have been filed onthe date of filing of the suit which was so withdrawn and incase of withdrawal of appeal or other proceeding, on the dateon which the Suit, out of which such appeal or proceedingoriginated, was filed; A

B

(b) the provision for appeal under the repealed Act shallcontinue in force in respect of applications, suits and proceedingsdisposed of thereunder;

(c) all prosecutions instituted under the provisions of therepealed Act shall be effective and disposed of in accordancewith such repealed law; C

(d) any rule or notification made or issued under the repealedAct and in force on the date of commencement of this Actshall continue to govern the pending cases.”

D

From the aforesaid for the present case only sub-section (3) isrelevant, which has been given overriding effect to other provisions bywhich the applications or suit or other proceedings filed under the OldAct (Repealed Act) pending on the date of commencement of the NewEAct before any Court shall be continued and disposed of in accordancewith the provisions of the Old Act (Repealed Act) as the Old Act hadcontinued in force and this Act had not been enacted. Thus, it is clearthat the suit or proceedings, if any, pending on the date of notificationissued by the State Government for applicability of the New Act suchproceedings would continue under the Old Act and New Act has noFapplication. Therefore, in our considered view, the High Court has rightlyrejected the contention while dismissing the review petition and rightlyheld that Section 20 of the New Act, by which three times mesne profitsto the standard rent was made permissible for the suit or proceedingsstarted under the New Act, have no application in suit or proceedingsGinitiated under Old Act and pending on the date of commencement ofNew Act. In our considered opinion the reasoning given in the orderdated 01.04.2019, while rejecting the review petition by the High Court,is perfectly in consonance to the spirit of Section 32 of the New Act.

9. Before the High Court, while passing the original order dated18.05.2018, it was contended by the Appellants that they are not in H

possession of 469.92 sq. meter (5058 sq. ft.). The said issue has beendealt with on the admitted fact in the earlier proceeding between thesame parties regarding fixation of standard rent in which the partiescame before this Court. In the order Court referring the affidavit of theAppellants filed before this Court admitted that the total covered area is2100 sq. ft. and an open area of 1200 sq. ft. having total area of 407 sq.yards is a tenanted premises. In our view also the affidavit filed beforethis Court in previous proceedings if considered by the High Court, nowthe Appellants are estopped to take different plea disputing the area oftenancy. Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the High Court do notwarrant any interference.

10. Now, reverting on the issue of determination of the amount ofmesne profits @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month is concerned, the guidancemay be taken from the judgment of Marshall Sons & Co.(I) Ltd. vs.Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and Another – (1999) 2 SCC 325, in whichthis Court held that once a decree for possession has been passed andthe execution is delayed depriving the decree holder to reap the fruits, itis necessary for the Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders fixingreasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rentrequired to be paid by a person who is holding over the property. In thecase of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P)Ltd. – (2005) 1 SCC 705, this Court held that Appellate Court doeshave jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in itsopinion reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasionedby delay in execution of the decree while granting the stay. The Courtrelying upon the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, observed thaton passing the decree for eviction by a competent Court, the tenant isliable to pay mesne profit or compensation for use and occupation of thepremises at the same rate at which the landlord would have able to letout the premises in present and earn the profit if the tenant would havevacated the premises. The Court has explained that because of pendencyof the appeal, which may be in continuation of suit, the doctrine of mergerdoes not have effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancymerely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passedby the superior forum at a later date.

11. Thus, after passing the decree of eviction the tenancyterminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profitsor compensation depriving him from the use of the premises. The view AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ataken in the case of Atma Ram (supra) has been reaffirmed in thecase of State of Maharashtra vs. Super Max International Pvt.Ltd. and others - (2009) 9 SCC 772 by three Judges Bench of thisCourt. Therefore, looking to the fact that the decree of eviction passedby Trial Court on 03.03.2016 has been confirmed in appeal; against whichsecond appeal is pending, however, after stay on being asked the directionBto pay mesne profits or compensation issued by the High Court is inconsonance to the law laid down by this Court, which is just equitableand reasonable.

12. The basis of determination of the amount of mesne profit, inour view, depends on the facts and circumstances of each caseCconsidering place where the property is situated i.e. village or city ormetropolitan city, location, nature of premises i.e. commercial or residentialare and the rate of rent precedent on which premises can be let out arethe guiding factor in the facts of individual case. In the case at hand, theHigh Court in the impugned order observed that the tenanted property isDlocated on the main road of New Colony near Panch Batti which is acommercial area in the heart of Jaipur City. The said finding has beenarrived considering the voluminous documentary record dispelling theplea taken by the Appellants. However, the Court in the facts andcircumstances found it reasonable to determine Rs.2,50,000/- per monthas mesne profit. As per the discussion made hereinabove so far as theEarea of the tenanted premises and the location of the property isconcerned, the findings of fact have been recorded by the High Court, inour considered opinion, those findings are based on the material broughton record which are neither perverse nor illegal. The amount of mesneprofit as fixed @ Rs.2,50,000/- is also just and proper looking at the span Fof time i.e. 10 years from the date of fixing of the standard rent and sixyear from the date of passing of the decree of eviction. Therefore, theamount of mesne profit has rightly been decided by the High Court whilepassing the order impugned.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, in our considered opinion,Gthe order fixing the mesne profit and the order passed on the reviewpetition, filed by the Appellants, are just and proper which do not warrantany interference. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)H

Appeals dismissed.