JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J. - (1.) Matter has come upon application filed by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 5 claiming mesne profit during pendency of the Civil Second Appeal.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the respondent that there is concurrent finding by both the Courts below in favour of the respondents. However, this Court was satisfied and framed substantial question of law at the stage of admission with interim order passed in favour of the appellant.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of the court that tenancy relates back to the year 1976 and almost 40 years have passed by now and only a meager amount of just Rs.187.50/- per month is being received in the form of rent whereas the shop is situated in the main Commercial Sarafa Market of Bharatpur which is considered to be the most prominent commercial Market of Bharatpur and the area of the shop in question is about 15 feet x 46 feet (690 Sq. Feet). Counsel also brought to the notice that in adjacent shop having a common boundary wall, the Apex Court in the case of the same appellant granted fixed compensation for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of judgment passed by the High Court where the size of the shop is for 4 ft. x 24 feet (110.4 Sq. Feet) and in the instant case the area in question is almost six times, therefore, on the same basis fair rent could be around Rs.60,000/- per month. Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that they have also provided the DLC value, in August, 2015 and the District Collector, Bharatpur fixed a rate of Rs.19,670/- per Sq. Ft. of the shop in question and counsel has worked out fair market value of the disputed shop to be around Rs.1.5 Crores and prays that mesne profit be granted in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court for the adjacent shop.;