Case Note & Summary
The High Court dismissed the landlord's interim application seeking deposit of market rent from October 2007 during the pendency of a civil revision application against an eviction decree. The Court acknowledged the legal principle from Atma Ram Properties that appellate courts can impose terms for compensation under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, and tenants may be liable for mesne profits at market rates post-decree. However, it found that the landlord's application, filed in 2023 for relief dating back to 2007, was delayed and sought to modify an interim order without showing changed circumstances. Relying on precedent like Sulochana Jadhav, the Court held no case was made out for relief, dismissed the application, and directed the civil revision application to be listed for final hearing.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, heard an interim application (IA No. 13541 of 2023) in Civil Revision Application No. 432 of 2008 -- The applicant/landlord, sought deposit of market rent at Rs.5,55,000 per month from October 2007 -- The respondent/tenants, opposed the application -- The Court referred to legal principles from Supreme Court judgment in Atma Ram Properties, which held that appellate courts can impose reasonable terms to compensate decree-holders for delay due to stay orders under Order 41 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- The Court noted that after an eviction decree, tenants are liable to pay mesne profits at market rates from the decree date -- However, the Court distinguished this case based on procedural history and delay -- The civil revision application was admitted on 23 June, 2010, and the landlord filed this application in 2023, seeking relief from 2007 -- The Court cited its own judgment in Sulochana Jadhav case, where similar applications filed years after admission were rejected as no change in circumstances was shown -- The Court held that granting relief would amount to modifying an interim order granted after hearing both parties, and no case was made out -- The interim application was dismissed, and the civil revision application was directed to be listed for final hearing
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the landlord is entitled to deposit of market rent from October 2007 during pendency of civil revision application against eviction decree
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the interim application (IA No. 13541 of 2023), holding no case was made out for deposit of market rent, and directed the civil revision application to be listed for final hearing
