JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J. - (1.) Matter has come upon application filed by the respondent plaintiff in whose favour though the decree of eviction was passed by the Trial Court but the appeal has been admitted by this Court and during pendency of the appeal, an interim order was passed directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month as mesne profit as per order dated 10.07.2009. Subsequent thereto, an application has been filed claiming regular mesne profit on higher amount. Counsel for the respondent supporting the claim of mesne profit has filed a valuation report dated 23.05.2014 of one Mr. Manish Kumar Vyas, who is a registered valuer, who valued/computed mesne rent on two basis. One on the basis of fair market value on which it is claimed that the fair rental could be around Rs. 51,217/- per month and second on the basis by adopting DLC rate prevalent as per the Sub-Registrar, Beawar, who has fixed the rate and on that basis it worked out to Rs. 13,860/- per month.
(2.) Counsel for the respondent submits that the tenancy is of 1965 and after long battle succeeded, however, he has right to claim mesne profit on the basis of fair market value. He has also provided a copy of DLC (Annex-A-2) which is applicable as on 09.03.2011 and states that after lapse of 5 years, this DLC is also substantially increased and contended that if the DLC of today is taken into consideration the fair rental could be about Rs. 25,000/- even on the basis of DLC and even otherwise, if the method adopted by the Registered valuer, taking into average may also come to about Rs. 30,000/- and also contended that the disputed shop is situated in the commercial market of Beawar. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) (1) SCC 705.
(3.) Per-contra, ld counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that this Court had already enhanced mesne profit at the time when the stay was granted as initially the rent was Rs. 471/- per month which has been enhanced by almost 4 times to Rs. 1,500/- per month and there is no occasion of enhancement of the said amount. Counsel further contends that he has filed rent receipts of nearby shops in the same market where the rental is about Rs. 700/- per month in the case of one shop and in another case it is Rs. 1,440/- per month, which are of August, 2015 and later. Counsel contends that valuation report is faulty and is supporting the respondent only and it is one sided and its an old construction of 1934 and it is in dilapidated condition and such factors have to be taken into consideration, which has been ignored by the Registered valuer and such a report cannot be relied upon.;