Whether acceptance of money equal to rent after determination of tenancy amounts to creation of new tenancy?

 In Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das, this Court held that where a contractual tenancy, to which rent control legislation applied, had expired by efflux of time or by determination by notice to quit and the tenant continued in possession of the premises, acceptance of rent from the tenant by the landlord after the expiration or determination of the contractual tenancy will not afford ground for holding that the landlord had assented to a new contractual tenancy. It was further held that acceptance by the landlord from the tenant, after the contractual tenancy had expired, of amounts equivalent to rent, or amounts which were fixed as standard rent, did not amount to acceptance of rent from a lessee within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1546 of 1969

Decided On: 14.12.1971

Bhawanji Lakhamshi  Vs. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.A. Vaidialingam and K.K. Mathew, JJ.

Citation:(1972) 1 SCC 388

Print Page

What reliefs can be claimed before small cause court?

 Mr. Sanghavi also submitted that in the plaint the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 35,625 by way of damages for trespass for the period June 1, 1970 till the date of the suit, that is, till April 1978, at the rate of Rs. 375 per month and for a sum of Rs. 375 per month from the date of the suit till possession of the said flat is handed over to the plaintiff either by way of future mesne profits or damages or compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the said flat. Mr. Sanghavi argued that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act did not in terms include a suit for damages for trespass or for compensation for wrongful use and occupation or for mesne profits. In his submission, the section only related to recovery of licence fee or charges and that the licence having been determined, all that the plaintiff could recover from the defendant was either damages for trespass or compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the property or mesne profits. This argument by Mr. Sanghavi overlooks the language used in the said Section 41. The said Section 41 speaks of "all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in Greater Bombay". It is significant that the words used in the said Section 41 are "suits relating to the recovery of possession" and not "suits for possession". Rule 12 of Order 20 of the Civil P. C., 1908, provides as to how a Court is to proceed "Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits." The contrast between the language used in Order 20, Rule 12 and the said Section 41 immediately strikes one. The phrase "relating to the possession of any immovable property" is wider than the phrase "for the recovery of possession of any Immovable property." The words "relating to" are intentionally and designedly used in the said Section 41 not to confine the section only to a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable property situate in Greater Bombay but also to permit to be included within the ambit of such a suit all other reliefs which the plaintiff can claim in a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable property on the termination of a licence or a tenancy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Short Cause Suit No. 890 of 1978

Decided On: 08.02.1979

Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli  Vs. Haribhai Manibhai Patel

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Balkrishna Narhar Deshmukh, C.J. and D.P. Madon, J.

Citation: AIR 1980 Bombay 123.

Print Page

Whether acceptance of use and occupation charges by municipal corporation would amount to renewal of original lease?

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority
(supra), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere
acceptance of amounts by the authority therein would not amount to
renewal of the original lease. It was found in the said case that there could

not be any automatic renewal and that in such a situation the occupation
of the premises in question was rendered unauthorized. In the present
case also, the act of the respondentCorporation
in accepting charges from
the petitioner would not result in automatic renewal of licence in favour of
the petitioner. The charges were accepted by the respondentCorporation
towards unauthorized occupation of the premises in question by the
petitioner. The licence could be said to have been renewed only, if an
agreement had been executed in favour of the petitioner by the
respondentCorporation
on terms that were agreeable to both the parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.5863 of 2017

Shyam Ramapati Pandey Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,

Coram : Manish Pitale, J.

Dated : 11th January, 2019.

Print Page

Whether judgment passed by court relating to nearby premises can be relied on for determining mesne profits?

This Court in Chameshwar Lall Sood’s case (supra)
was dealing with eviction of premises, which are situated at a
distance of about less than 200 metres from the premises in
question and this Court on the basis of evidence produced by
the landlord fixed the use and occupation charges @ Rs.250/per
sq. feet.
25 In the present case, even though the landlord has
not produced any such evidence but then he is well within his
right to place reliance on the decisions rendered by this
Court which can definitely be taken into consideration while
fixing the mesne profits and use and occupation charges.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CMP Nos. 8489/2017 and 8471/2018
in C.R. No. 196/2017 

Date of decision : 28.12.2018

Amarjit Singh Bedi  Vs.  Sanjay Kuthiala and ors. 

Coram
 Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Print Page

How to decide quantum of mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of premises?

So far as the affidavit of the petitioner regarding the assessment of the quantum of mesne profits is concerned the instances given by the petitioner in the affidavit appear to be of no significance. It is not stated anywhere as to when these premises were leased out and as to when the rate of rent was fixed. But the law on the subject is that mesne profits or compensation for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute has to be assessed at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant. Therefore the instances which are old by decades of years will be of no help to arrive at this conclusion.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Civil Misc. No. 15946-CII of 2005 in Civil Revision No. 3447 of 2001

Decided On: 24.05.2006

 Surinder Singh Vs. Dr. Davinder Mohan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

Citation: 2007(1) Civil court cases 009 P&H

Print Page

Whether unauthorised occupant is liable to deposit use and occupation charges during pendency of eviction proceeding?

As already observed, the word 'rent' in Order XVA CPC is not limited to the 'admitted' rent. In any event, it also envisages the Court determining an 'amount' payable towards either rent or future mesne profits. In the present case, after the termination of the tenancy, the Defendants continue to occupy the commercial property. The property, in which where they are running a restaurant, is located in a busy market area. The Defendants have not countered the documents placed on record by the Plaintiff to show that the current market rent for commercial property of a similar size in the area is more than Rs. 3 lakhs per month. The mere fact that the Plaintiff may have the title documents of the residential property of the Defendants cannot be said to constitute sufficient security for the purposes of Order XVA CPC. The object of this provision is to provide the landlord with some 'amount' for use and occupation of the property by the Defendant during the pendency of the litigation. Keeping these factors in view, the Court is of the opinion that pending the final decision in the suit, the Defendants should deposit towards use and occupation charges/falling within the meaning of the expression 'such amount' in Order XVA CPC, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per month.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 1698 of 2011

Decided On: 03.12.2013

 Prem Lata Vs. Raghubir Rai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Muralidhar, J.

Print Page