- (1.) THE present petition has been filed challenging the interim order dated 5.4.12 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Regular Appeal No. 12/12 whereby the appellate court has stayed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court against the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner-defendant shall deposit Rs. 2450/- per month by way of mesne profits.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the civil suit being No. 67/01 against the petitioner-defendant seeking eviction in respect of the property in question and for the recovery of the rent, before the Civil Judge (J.D.) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'). THE said suit was decreed by the trial court vide the judgment and decree dated 1.12.11, by directing the petitioner-defendant to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff and also to pay Rs. 2450/- per month by way of mesne profits till the possession was handed over. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the appeal before the appellate court. THE petitioner had also preferred the application seeking the stay of execution of the said decree pending the appeal, in which the appellate court has passed the impugned conditional order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Chaudhary for the petitioner that the trial court without framing any issue and without giving any finding had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2450/- per month by way of mesne profits at the time of passing of the decree and the appellate court has also put the condition directing the petitioner to pay the said amount by way of mesne profits for staying the execution of the decree. According to him the said amount is very excessive and the petitioner is not in a position to pay the same and, therefore, the impugned interim order dated 5.4.12 passed by the appellate court deserves to be set aside. Having regard to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the impugned interim order dated 5.4.12 passed by the appellate court, the court does not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, it clearly transpires that the court had framed issue No.4 as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 200/- per month with interest from the date 1.7.2000. While deciding the said issue, the trial court had observed that it was not disputed by both the parties that the trial court vide order dated 19.2.03 had fixed the provisional rent, and the defendant had deposited the said rent in the court. It wasfurther observed that thereafter the parties had mutually decided the standard rent @ Rs. 2450/- per month. The DW.1 Hemraj i.e. the present petitioner-defendant in his deposition had also stated that the standard rent of the suit premises was decided by the parties at Rs. 2450/- per month. Under the circumstances the trial court had observed that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the rent with interest from the date 1.7.2000. There being specific discussion and finding of the trial court in the judgment passed by it, the trial court had directed the petitioner-defendant to pay Rs. 2450/- per month by way of mesne profits, while passing the decree of eviction against him. Considering the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellate court has also imposed the condition by directing the petitioner-defendant to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 2450/- per month while staying the execution of the said decree till the pendency of the appeal. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate court, this court exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the same. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.;