Skip to content


Nagendra Kumar JaIn Vs. District Judge, Ajmer and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Constitution

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Decided On

Case Number

S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO.6133 of 2011

Judge

Acts

Constitution Of India - Article 227

Appellant

Nagendra Kumar Jain

Respondent

District Judge, Ajmer and Others

Appellant Advocate

Mr. R.M. Jain, Adv

Respondent Advocate

Mr. R.K. Agarwal; Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv

Excerpt:


.....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. 4. 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. it has been observed by the learned district judge that the suit premises are being used by the petitioner-tenant for commercial purposes since the year 1977-78. keeping in view all these circumstances and applying his personal experience and knowledge, the learned district judge ordered an amount of rs. 2000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner tenant to the respondent.....

Judgment:


1. Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 20th April, 2011 rendered by the learned District Judge, Ajmer, whereby he ordered the petitioner – tenant to pay mesne-profit @ Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) per month to the landlord-respondents.

2. 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 with regard to eviction of the premises came to be passed by the learned trial court on 29th October, 2010. 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 pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month as mesne-profits to the landlord-respondents.

3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 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.

4. 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. It has been observed by the learned District Judge that the suit premises are being used by the petitioner-tenant for commercial purposes since the year 1977-78. Keeping in view all these circumstances and applying his personal experience and knowledge, the learned District Judge ordered an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner tenant to the respondent – landlord as mesne profits. 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.

5. 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.

6. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.

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


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //