M/S. MARSHALL SONS AND CO. (I) LTD. versus M/S SAHI ORETANS (P) LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 29-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. MARSHALL SONS AND CO. (I) LTD. 
v. 
MIS SAHi ORETANS (P) LTD. AND ANR. 
JANUARY 29, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 2( 12)--Mesne profits--
Reasonableness of-Delay in Court Proceedings-Need for protection of in-
terest of decree holder-Eviction suit filed by appellant landlord against four 
defendants-Grounds-Failure to pay rent and sublettin/j--Decree granted by 
Trial Court against defendant No.I only upheld by the Appellate Court-High 
Court granted decree against all the four defendants-Special Leave Petition 
filed by one of the defendants-Petition dismissed by this Court-Direction 
A 
B 
c 
that decree shall not be executed on or before 31st December, 1984-However, 
decree in favour of appellant not executed-Thereafter, suit filed by respon-
dent claiming tenancy rights through one of the original def endants-ln this D 
suit appellant landlord praying for possession and mesne profits from 1.1.1984 
to 30.6.1996-Direction by Trial Court to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 
443.93 p. per month-Appeal prefe"ed by appellant before High Court dis-
missed-Appeal before this Court-Held, Respondents should pay the mesne 
profits/compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. ft. from 1984 till date of this 
order and at the rate of Rs. 20/- thereafter till the disposal of the suit. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 420 of 
1999. 
E 
From the Judgment and order dated 17.11.97 of the.Bombay High F 
Court in W.P. No. 5230 of 1997. 
D.A. Dave, Gopal Jain, Mrs. Nandini Gore and Mrs. M. Karanjawala 
for the Appellant. 
T.R. Andhyarujina, H.N Salve, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Trideep Pais, Ms. G 
Madhu and Ms. Anjolie Singh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. This appeal has been filed under the following cir-
cumstances. The present appeal had obtained a decree for eviction in Rent H 
311 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999) 1 S.C.R. 
A Suit No. 594/5333 of 1962 as early as on 16th June, 1969. The suit was filed 
against (i) M/s. United Artists Corporation (Original Defendant No. 1), 
(ii). The Western India Theaters Ltd. (iii) M/s. Halda Engineering Co., 
and (iv) Anti friction Bearing Corporation Limited (Original Defendant 
Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively) for obtaining vacant possession of the said 
B premises on the ground that original defendant No. 1 had failed to pay rent 
for a period of six months and for unlawful subletting the premises. The 
Trial Court decreed the suit against defendant No. 1. On appeal being 
Appeal No. 534 of 1969, the decree against original defendant No. 1 was 
confirmed and the decree of dismissal against defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was 
also confirmed. Against that order appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 
C 1695 of 1979 before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the decree 
against the original defendant No. 1 and the order passed by the Trial 
Court dismissing the suit against them was also reversed by passing a 
decree against original defendants 2, 3 and 4. Against the judgment and 
decree M/s. Halda Engineering Company filed special leave petition before 
D this Court. That petition was dismissed on 4th May, 1984 with a direction 
that decree shall not be executed on or before 31st December, 1984 on 
condition that petitioner shall file an undertaking on the terms stated 
therein. For some reason or other the said decree has not been executed 
until and application was filed under Order XXI Rule 22 of the C.P.C. and 
in that application the Court passed an order on 9.9.1991 for execution of 
E the decree and for delivery of possession. The present respondent 
obstructed tile delivery of possession on the ground that he was in posses-
sion of the property. 
Pending Obstruction Application, respondent filed Declaratory Suit 
F being R.A.D. Suit No. 2152of1991 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay 
for a declaration of his tenancy rights by contending that there was a tenant 
of the premises since 1973 through M/s. Halda Engineering Company. In 
the said suit, the present appellant Gudgment creditor) appeared and 
indicated the fact that how the decree for eviction granted in his favour 
had not been executed and prayed that possession should be delivered to 
G him immediately and also respondent should be directed to deposit mesne 
profits from 1.1.1984 till 30.6.1996 at the prevailing market rent. The Trial 
Court did not accept the prayer for handing over possession, but di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.