Sanwar Mal Sharma vs Seth Jugaldas Ganderiwala Charitable and Another

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 25th January, 2010 rendered by Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar, whereby he granted the interim order in favour of the Petitioner - tenant directing him to deposit the decretal amount in the bank account of the Respondent-landlord within a period of two months and further to continue deposit the amount of mesne-profit @ Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One Thousand) per month w.e.f. 1.1.2010 till 15th of every month in the bank account of the landlord-Respondent.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that a judgment and decree came to be passed by the learned trial court on 21.2.2009 and 24.2.2009 respectively. Aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the Petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal. The learned appellate court having considered the submissions of both the parties, directed the Petitioner-tenant to deposit the decretal amount in the bank account of the Respondent-landlord within a period of two months and further directed to continue to deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month as mesne-profit w.e.f. 1.1.2010 till 15th of every month in the bank account of the landlord-Respondent.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., held that the appellate court is required to pass an order with regard to mesne-profits based on the robust common-sense, common knowledge of human affairs and events gained by judicial experience and judicially noticeable facts, over and above the material available on record. The Hon''ble Apex Court further held that, there is every justification for the appellate court to put the Appellant tenant on terms and direct the Appellant to compensate the landlord by payment of a reasonable amount which is not necessarily the same as the contractual rate of rent.

Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the appellate court considered all the aspects ad-longum. The appellate court not only considered the facts of the case and the attending circumstances, but applied his own experience and the common knowledge with regard to the situation of the suit premises. Keeping in view all these circumstances and applying his personal experience and knowledge, the learned appellate court directed an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month to be deposited by the Petitioner tenant as mesne-profits w.e.f. 1.1.2010 till 15th of every month in the bank account of the Respondent - landlord. The impugned order, as argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is not found to be arbitrary or perverse, conversely it seems to be just and apt, which to my firm view, warrants no intervention.

Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to upset the pure findings of fact. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is expected and required to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction only in a case where the impugned order is found to be totally perverse, contrary to material on record or it results in manifesting injustice.

In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to decide the appeal filed by the Petitioner-tenant within a period of three months.

Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.