Date of the Judgment: November 16, 2017
Citation: Not Available in Source
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.
Can the Supreme Court settle a dispute regarding mesne profits after the eviction process is complete? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a long-standing eviction dispute. The core issue revolved around the determination of mesne profits or use and occupation charges after the tenant had already vacated the premises. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi, ultimately directed the parties to an appropriate forum for resolution of the remaining dispute.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between Mukesh Seth and another party (the Appellants), and M/s. A.B. Lal and Sons & Ors. (the Respondents) concerning the eviction of the Appellants from a property. The dispute had been ongoing for a considerable period, with the primary issue being the eviction of the tenant.
The Supreme Court had previously issued an order on January 2, 2017, where the keys of the disputed premises were handed over to the counsel for the respondents, effectively completing the eviction process. The Court also recorded a statement that the respondents could occupy the premises without any hindrance from the petitioner. The court also directed the petitioner to clear all outstanding water and electricity dues within six weeks.
On May 3, 2016, the Court had noted that the second petitioner, a company, appeared to be a dormant entity with no significant business activity. The Court also noted that the market rental value of the premises was significantly higher than the rent being paid by the petitioner. The Court then directed the petitioner company to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as compensation for use and occupation of the premises, effective from May 1, 2010.
Following this, Ms. Heena Munshaw, representing the petitioner company, filed an application for modification of the order dated May 3, 2016.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1963 | Contractual rent was fixed for the premises. |
| May 1, 2010 | Effective date for the directed compensation for use and occupation of the premises by the Supreme Court. |
| May 3, 2016 | Supreme Court directed the petitioner company to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as compensation. |
| January 2, 2017 | Keys of the disputed premises were handed over to the respondents’ counsel. |
| September 25, 2017 | Landlord’s counsel stated that the electricity and water charges were around Rs. 45,000/-. |
| November 16, 2017 | Supreme Court disposed of the appeal and contempt petition, relegating the parties to an appropriate forum. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court had been hearing the matter in relation to the eviction of the Appellants from the premises. The Court had previously passed orders regarding the handing over of the premises and the payment of outstanding dues. The primary issue remaining was the dispute regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges. The court also took note of the fact that the petitioner company appeared to be a dormant entity.
Legal Framework
There is no specific legal framework discussed in the judgment.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were primarily focused on the status of the petitioner company and the outstanding dues. The counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner company was a non-existent shell company, incapable of paying the rent due. They also highlighted the significant difference between the contractual rent and the market rental value of the premises.
The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that the company was involved in the business of importing and selling textile machinery. They also stated that the first petitioner was a commission agent for the second petitioner company.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Status of Petitioner No. 2 Company | Company is a dormant, non-existent shell company with no business activity. | Respondents |
| Status of Petitioner No. 2 Company | Company is involved in the business of importing and selling textile machinery. | Petitioners |
| Relationship between Petitioners | Petitioner No. 1 is not a director of Petitioner No. 2 company. | Respondents |
| Relationship between Petitioners | Petitioner No. 1 is a commission agent for Petitioner No. 2 company. | Petitioners |
| Rental Value | Market rental value of the premises is significantly higher than the contractual rent. | Respondents |
| Outstanding Dues | Petitioner No. 2 company should clear all outstanding dues. | Respondents |
The innovativeness of the argument lies in the respondents’ counsel highlighting the dormant nature of the petitioner company, which raised questions about the company’s ability to fulfill its financial obligations.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any specific issues for determination in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was the settlement of the dispute regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges after the eviction process had been completed.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Dispute regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges. | The Court decided that the surviving disputes regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges should be settled by an appropriate forum, not by the Supreme Court. |
Authorities
No authorities were discussed by the court in the source document.
Judgment
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and the fact that the premises had been surrendered, decided to relegate the parties to an appropriate forum for the resolution of the remaining disputes.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Dispute regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges. | The Court decided that the surviving disputes regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges should be settled by an appropriate forum, not by the Supreme Court. |
| Status of the Petitioner Company | The Court did not express any final opinion on the merits of the contentions regarding the status of the petitioner company. |
The court did not discuss any authorities in the source document.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision to relegate the parties to an appropriate forum was primarily influenced by the fact that the eviction process was complete, and the remaining dispute was regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges. The Court was of the view that such disputes should be settled by an appropriate forum. The court also took into consideration the long-pending nature of the dispute and directed the appropriate forum to take steps to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Completion of Eviction Process | 40% |
| Appropriate Forum for Mesne Profits Dispute | 40% |
| Long-Pending Nature of Dispute | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court considered the fact that the premises had been surrendered and the eviction process was complete. The Court was of the view that the remaining dispute was regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges, which could be settled by an appropriate forum. The Court also considered the long-pending nature of the dispute.
The Supreme Court stated, “Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the premises has been surrendered vacant possession, we are of the view that the surviving disputes are to be settled by an appropriate forum and not by this Court.”
The Court further stated, “Therefore, we relegate the parties to the appropriate forum with liberty to pursue their surviving grievances regarding fixation of mesne profits/use and occupation charges etc.”
The Court also clarified, “In case any Forum is approached by any party, having regard to the long pending disputes, steps shall be taken to dispose of the matter expeditiously.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court will not typically settle disputes regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges after the eviction process is complete.
- ✓ Parties are relegated to an appropriate forum for the resolution of such disputes.
- ✓ The appropriate forum is expected to expedite the resolution of long-pending disputes.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the parties to approach an appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges. The Court also directed that the forum should take steps to dispose of the matter expeditiously, given the long-pending nature of the dispute.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Supreme Court will not typically settle disputes regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges after the eviction process is complete, and the parties will be relegated to an appropriate forum for resolution. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal and the contempt petition, directing the parties to an appropriate forum for the resolution of the remaining dispute regarding mesne profits/use and occupation charges. This decision emphasizes that the Supreme Court will not typically engage in the determination of mesne profits after the eviction process is complete, and such disputes are best resolved by a suitable lower court or tribunal.