Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.30 seconds)
Debonair Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs Eshrat Jahan Also Known As Ishrat Jahan & ... on 5 February, 2024 cites

M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004

On the following questions of law there is unanimity between us: The principle on which mesne profits or occupation charges can be directed to be paid to the plaintiff pending appeal by the defendant against an order of eviction as laid down in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 would also apply in case of suits for eviction against occupiers and mesne profits pending trial. This is subject to the plaintiff establishing prima facie that the defendant has practically no defence to the claim of the plaintiff. The award of mesne profits or occupation charges need not be based on the market value of the property. It should only satisfy the test of reasonableness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 729 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Kanak Projects Limited vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited on 3 February, 2014

Such being the position in law, we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the Learned single Judge of this court in Kanak Projects' case that even the learned trial judge can issue direction upon the defendant/ tenant to pay occupational charges at the market rent by way of damages in absence of any provision in law. Even direction for deposit of damages with any officer of the court is not permissible as we have already held above that such direction can only be passed after the issue as to the legality of the possession of the defendant in the suit premises is finally decided in the suit. Though Civil Procedure Code was amended by several states by introducing a new order being Order No XV Rule 5A in the Civil Procedure Code, dealing with striking of defence of the lessee in the suit for eviction filed by lessor, but such provision is absent in our State.'
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Utpal Ghosh vs Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee on 28 February, 2020

8. Utpal Ghosh Vs Manas Kumar Mukherjee [Reported in 2020 SCC online (Cal) 528] 27 Learned Advocate for the defendant/respondent submits that the respondents are monthly tenants in respect of one small room at a monthly rental of Rs 45/- per month payable according to English Calendar month but on raising the valuation by seeking mesne profit at an exorbitant rate suit has been filed before this Hon'ble Court . Learned Advocate further submits that the rent of the defendants/ respondents is only Rs 45/- per month and accordingly as per the court fee and the valuation act, the suit for eviction is to valued on the basis of annual rent last paid and accordingly, the value of the suit property as per Court fees can be established around Rs 500/- only. The plaintiff/appellant instead of filing the suit before the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta where the suit is to be filed, filed it before the Original Side of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by claiming mesne profit at a fabulous and fictitious rate. Learned Advocate also submits that the respondents/defendants appeared and on appearance filed written statements and contested the suit challenging the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court where suit has been filed. It is submitted that the suit has been over-valued and filed in a court not having jurisdiction. Learned Advocate submits that the present appellant's predecessor obtained a decree for eviction against the alleged lessee regarding the premises in suit and on the basis of such decree sought to evict the present defendants/respondents. The present defendants/respondents intervened into the execution case and filed application on following the provision of Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On hearing this Hon'ble Court initially granted interim order and the said order was made absolute. In the said proceedings the respondents herein established that the decree passed against the Judgement Debtor in the said suit is not binding upon the petitioner being the respondents herein. The said orders attained finality and such orders have not been assailed. The said decision is binding upon the present plaintiff who allegedly purchased the suit property from the previous owners/ landlords who initiated the earlier suit against the alleged 28 lessee. Since the predecessor of the present plaintiff got the chance to evict the present respondents in the said earlier proceeding by establishing that as per provision of section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy, the respondents have no right to continue the occupation the respondents would have been evicted in connection with the earlier execution case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Dasgupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next