GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment rendered by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) and Judl. Magistrate, (West) Bhilwara dated 02.06.2007, by which, the learned trial Court passed decree for eviction and for payment of rent. In the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 5, C.P.C. was filed against the petitioner. Upon the application filed under Order 41, Rule 5, C.P.C., learned trial Court vide its order dated 02.08.2007 while staying operation of the judgment passed order for payment of mesne profits of Rs. 2,000/ -. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the said order and has prayed that this Court, in the case of Mahaveer Prasad v. Saraswati Devi Ojha through LRs, reported in 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1568, in similar facts and circumstances, exercised jurisdiction under Article 227, Constitution of India in the case. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/ -, in that case, per month as mesne profits instead of rent of Rs. 325/ - per month cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case also, upon application filed under Section 6 of the Rent Control Act, rent was enhanced to Rs. 543/ -, but, instead of directing to make payment of rent, without any adjudication, mesne profits is directed to be paid at the rate of Rs. 2,000/ - per month. Therefore, the controversy involved in this case is identical to that in Mahaveer Prasad's case (supra).;