Rajasthan High Court

Mewar Sugar Mills Limited vs Late Smt. Shanti Devi Rawat W/O ... on 2 May, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 517/1998
'Mewar Sugar Mills Limited' renamed as ("Mewar Sugar Mills
Private Limited"), Bhagat Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur

                                                     ----Appellant-Defendant
                                    Versus
1.    Late Smt. Shanti Devi Rawat W/o Gopi Chand Rawat
      (since deceased) through Lrs.
      1/1. Late Manak Chand Rawat (Son), (Since Deceased)
      Through Lrs.
      1/1/1. Smt. Kusam Lata Rawat W/o (Late) Manak Chand
      Rawat, Plot No. 3, Uniara Garden, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
      1/1/2. Sandeep Rawat S/o (Late) Manak Chand Rawat,
      Plot No. 3 Uniara Garden, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
      1/1/3. Smt. Surekha Agarwal D/o (Late) Manka Chand
      Rawat, W/o Atul Agarwal, Plot No. A-41, Hauz Khas, New
      Delhi.


      1/2. Shri Moti Chand Rawat (Son), Aged About 48 Years,
      R/o 3, Uniara Garden, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.


      1/3. Smt. Manko Bai (Daughter), Aged About 60 Years,
      C/o Gokul Mishra Ji Ka Rasta, H.n. 535, Hanuman Ka
      Rasta, Jaipur.


      1/4. Smt. Lalita (Daughter), Aged About 50 Years, C/o
      Gokul Mishra Ji Ka Rasta, H.n. 535, Hanuman Ka Rasta,
      Jaipur.




                                                   ----Respondents-Plaintiffs

For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. S.C. Goyal &
                               Mr. Ankit Popli
For Respondent(s)         :    Mrs. Suruchi Kasliwal
                               Mr. Vikram Singh
                               Ms. Devika Jain
                               Mr. Prayansh Jain


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
                         Order



                                           (2 of 5)                   [CSA-517/1998]

02/05/2022

1. This second appeal has been filed by appellant-tenant- company invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100 CPC, assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Court No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in suit No. 19/1995, whereby suit for eviction in relation to rented flat on the ground of non-user as enshrined under Section 13 (1) (J) of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 has been decreed and which has been affirmed in first appeal No.7/1997 vide judgment dated 03.09.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

2. During the course of arguments, counsel for appellant-tenant pointed out that in fact respondent-landlord instituted the eviction suit alleging inter alia that the rented premise is not being used for the purpose it was let out, however, the eviction decree has been passed with finding that the rented premise was lying closed for a period of six month preceding to the date of suit.

3. Learned counsel pointed out that since ample evidence is available on record to observe that the rented premise never remained closed, hence findings of two courts below on the ground of non-use are perverse.

4. However, considering the fact that the tenancy of the appellant-tenant in the rented premise begun in the year 1961, this Court before going into the merits of the appeal, in order to strike a balance between the parties, asked the counsel for appellant to seek instruction from the appellant-company to vacate the rented premise. Counsel for respondents, accepted such proposal and agreed to grant some reasonable time to appellant-company, if it is agreed for it.

5. The appellant has moved an application No.3/2022 supported with an affidavit of Shri Mohan lal Menariya, Law Officer and authoritized signatory for and on behalf of appellant-company that the appellant is prepared to vacate the rented premise but three years time may be granted to the appellant to vacate and

(3 of 5) [CSA-517/1998]

hand over the vacant possession of rented premise to the respondent-landlord.

6. Learned counsel for respondents, on the instruction of the respondent No.1/1/1-Smt. Kusam Lata Rawat and in the interest of the respondents, grabbed the offer and agreed that the time of three years may be granted but amount of mesne profit may be enhanced.

7. It is not in dispute that this Court vide order dated 13.07.2006 determined the mesne profit at the rate of 20,000/- per month to be paid by the appellant-company for use & occupation of rented premise during course of this appeal. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant-company is already paying mesne profit at the rate of 20,000/- as fixed by this Court and will continue to pay the same amount of mesne profit for the next three years also.

8. In view of above, this Court does not deem it just and proper to enhance the mesne profit, more so when parties have agreed for three years time to vacate the rented premise.

9. Learned counsel for respondents have moved an application No.2/2022 stating therein that the original plaintiff-landlord- Smt.Shanti Devi had executed a Will dated 17.02.2000 in favour of her son Shri Manak Chand Rawat-respondent No.1/1 and thereafter respondent No.1/1 has executed his Will dated 05.01.2011 in favour of his wife Smt. Kusam Lata Rawat- respondent No.1/1/1 herein. It has been prayed that since through aforesaid two Wills, the rented premise came in sole ownership of respondent No.1/1/1, hence she only inter-meddles with the rented premise and she is only receiving the mesne profit, and she herself has filed execution application on default of non-payment of mesne proift, hence in view of aforesaid fact, the respondent No.1/1/1-Smt. Kusam Lata Rawat be only treated as legal representative of deceased respondent-plaintiff and the name of other legal heirs be deleted. Copy of both Wills have been placed on record. It has been stated that other legal heirs have no objection & though they have not filed their affidavits, but the counsel is representing all the respondents.

(4 of 5) [CSA-517/1998]

10. However, since in present second appeal, the dispute is about the decree for eviction, therefore, this Court is not inclined to enter into consider the effect of both Wills to confer ownership upon respondent No.1/1/1. Since respondent No.1/1/1-Smt. Kusam Lata Rawat is indisputedly one of the legal representatives on record and is landlord, hence, she is otherwise also entitled to obtain the possession of the rented premise, as and when vacated by the appellant-tenant. This arrangement may not be treated as detrimental to the interest of other legal representatives.

11. Accordingly, the application No.2/2022 filed on behalf of respondents stands disposed of.

12. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and in view of respective contentions/submissons of counsel for both parties this Court, while maintaining the decree for eviction passed against the appellant-tenant-company, disposed of this appeal on the following agreed terms:-

(i) The appellant-tenant shall be entitled to continue in occupation and use of the tenanted premises in question till 30.04.2025, subject to condition that he would hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to landlords on or before 30.04.2025.

(ii) The appellant-tenant would continue to pay mesne profits at the rate of 20,000/- per month (as being paid by appellant), regularly from May, 2022 onwards until vacation and handing over possession of rented premise to the respondent-landlord. Arrears of mesne profits upto April 2022, if any, would be paid within a period of two months.

(iii) The appellant-tenant shall not alienate or otherwise create third party right or hand over possession of rented premises in question to any other person.

(iv) That appellant-tenant shall furnish an undertaking, incorporating aforesaid conditions, before the trial court within a period of four months, from the date of this order with an advance copy to the landlord.

(5 of 5) [CSA-517/1998]

13. In case tenant fails to submits the undertaking as aforesaid, and/or commits breach of the conditions of this order, the landlord shall be entitled to initiate immediate execution of judgment and decree to obtain possession of premise in issue forthwith, in accordance with law and may also initiate proceedings of contempt for breach of this order.