The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SUNIL B GANU The Court made the following: ORDER ".-a:.- - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CfvIL REVISION PETITION No.1O91 OF 2019 Date: 1L.t2.2O25 Between: T.Narender Rao and others AND .,.Petitioner ...Respondent D.Krishna ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.1066 of 20 18 in A.S.No. lB2 of 20 18 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, Cify Civil Court at Hyderabad

2. Heard Sri K.R.K.Gargeya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Sunil B.Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners herein, who are the appellalts in A.S.No.lB2 of 2018, hled the said appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed 1n O.S.No.884 of 2O 10 b1, the learned XVII Senior Civil Judge, City 2 Civil Court, Hl,derabad, dated 04.07.20 iB. Whr .ein, pencling the appeal, an application was also filecl under Orrl, r 41 Rule 5 read s,ith Section 15 1 oi the Code of Civil procedure. r.a.yrng t() stay all fur ther proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree clated 04.07.2018. The said application was filed on tl ( ground that the petitioners have good grounds to succeed ln th r appeal :rnd that thcir possession over the suit schedule propcrt] r protectecl under Exs.B 1 and 82. It rvas further contended that if L re judgment and decree are executed, the petitioners will be disl>,, sessed f rotn the suit schedule property, thereby causing great h i ;.dship to them, and hence prayed for grant of stay of execution rf the judgment and decree of the trial Court. . 4. The respondent filed a counter ancl ve,I , the petition for grant of stay of execution of tlr decree passed by the trial Court. It u.as co;.r , petitioners/appellants are in illegal possession of r1 property since 2008 and that thel,did not placc mently opposed judgment and nded that the ,r suit schedule ny cogent and acceptable evidence to establish and prove their trial Court. Mereiy on the ground that the pe L possession of the suit schedule property does no title over the counter-claim schedule property in tlri ase before the Lioners are in ':stablish their rbsence of any 3 valid title in their favour. It r.t as further contended that in the event of unconditional sta1, being granted during the pendency of the appeal of a party in possession, the same would result in substantial loss to the party opposrng tl-te stay.

5. Having heard both the counsel, the learned Judge considering the contention and rival contention of the both the parties and a-1so the judgmen t of Atrna Rann Properties (P) Limited as. Federal (P) Limitedl, taking into consideration of the same and that the appellate court came up u'ith terms and directed the appellants to compensate the landlord by payment of a reasonable amolrnt il,hich is not necessarily the same as the contractual rate of rent. The learned judged took a clue from the said judgment applying all the said principles have held that as plaintiff claim mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit schedule premises @Rs.4,000/ - per month frorn 03.02.2010 till delivery of possession of suit schedule property. Considering the same, the petition was allowed and interim stay was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner/appellants appeilants are directed to deposit mesne profits/damages @Rs.4,0O0/- per month from 03.02.20 l0 to tili date and shall continue to deposit ' (2005) 1 scc 705 4 the same at the same rate till disposai of the :1 pcal anrl also to deposit the suit costs. Further it is also direct.d that on such deposit, the re spondent/ plain tiff is entitled ro rc- .rr,c thc same by furrrishing securitv to the satisfaction of the tr.i Ll cotirts, being aggrieved b.y thc same the present Civil Revisior- pctition is hled contending that the learned Judge erroneously gl,,,clirection to the petitioner to deposrt the said amounts to the cre.cr of thc suit and furtlter directed to continue to deposit the samr: ; t the same rate and it is further contended that the respondenl / I laintifr craiming reliel to cleclare that the plaintiff is the absolute r,er of tr-re suit schedule property and also further prayed seeki rg damages for il1ega1 use and occupation of the suit sc: ,clule properfy @)Rs a,O00/- per month and the ground that the rnd lord q,ould have able to let out the premises and earned rent rf tenant rvould have vacated the premises and also raised the s ound that the judgrnent cited by the petitioner/plaintiff therein i e., Atma Rq.m Properties (P) Limited. as, Federal (p) Limttec I, u.ill not be applicable to the rnstant case and prayed to allo*, t-,, : Civil Revision Petition and to ser aside the condition imposed. '? lzoos; r scc zos 5

6. Having heard the contentions and rival contentions of both the parties, r,,,hercin the learned counsel for the appellants have argued and contended that the contention which is imposed and supporting the ordcr of the trial Court and also relied upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in Taustf Ahmad And Ors US Munshi Baharuddin And Orss wherein it is held that: Para 9: In view of these decisions, the principles can be analysed rn the following manner: (a) In case the plaintiffclaims past and luture mcsne profils rnd srrch a clainr is allorved in the decree. it is opcn to applr tbr thc uscerlninrncDt olpast xnd tlture mesnc profits. (b) lt no claim is made at all for mesne profits, thcre can be no decree tbr it and lhen thc question olascerlainment does not ari:,a. (c) Il however, the plaintrffclaims mesne, profits but the claim is refused. rhcn a pctition for ascertainment is not mainrainable (d) Even ifthe claim is for past mesnc profits onh, it is open to a court to allow future mesne profits as ivell and in that case plainliff can apply lor ascertainment ofeven futurc mesnc prolits. (e) ll the claim is for past mesne profits only and rhe court allows only this claim in the decree and keeps silent about the luture mesne profits, the plaintiffcannot apply for ascertainment of fururc mesne profits as they will be doorned to have been refused. High of Punj ab & Haryana rn Horbans Singh through LR us. Bharti Deui @ Sanfa and others Para 4: l,eamed counsel lor the petitioner rclies upon a judgrnent ol thc Suprcrre Court in M/s ,-ltna Ram lnf,'rties ll') l.td. | \1. s FLderal ll,[otrtrs I'vt. Ltd.,2005(l) RCR (Rcnt) l, tionr which hc poinrs ro rhe conclusion passed by their Lordships. rvhich rcads as follorrs:- 18. To sum up. our conclurinns rre:- (l) While passing an order of sta_r, under Rulc 5 Order 4l of the Code of Clivil Procedure, I908, the appellate Court does ha vc j urisdiction to put thc rpplicant on such reasonable terrns as would in its opinion reasonablc conrpensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of I AIR 1965 Pat 436 6 decrce bv lirc 1]rilnt ol sra.,,orr]er. in thc cvcnt olthc appcal bci r disnrisscd irnd in so l.l as thosc procecdings are concerned. Such ternrs ec(llcss to say, shall bc reasonablc; (2) In case of' premiscs governcd bv the provisions of thc )clhi Rcnt Control Acr. 1958. in vicrv of the detrnition oftcnant contair c,in clause (l)ol-Secti,rnl(,fthe,\ct.thetCnilltcldocsnotstandle|lnin|1,( r:rcrcly.br its tcr tinat ort rrnde,- (lrc qcncral larr. it tcrnrrnatcs ,,r,ith the :r. inq ol-tlte Jecrcc lor cvrcriol. \\ lh c,lfcct licrn that date. llre tenlinl , ,.i rt, pr-r rnesnc prolrts or cot'npcnsation for use arrd occupation ol'the pr( I iscs at thc samc rate it uhich rhc landlord ,,vould have bcen able t,r t out llt!- prentiscs and elnt rcnt ilthe tenant woLrld have vacatcd the 1tr..: tiscs -fhc lirndlord is not l)ounJ i)\ thc contractual rate ofrent ef}'ective ii r hc pcriod preccdrng tllc (latc of lltc decree; ( I ) thc doctr ine o; liergcr docs not have the cllbct of poslponintt lj clate ol letni^,tio, Lrltc.a,cr rne.elv ttccnrrse tltc decree of eviction sli r s,tcrged il thc !tecrc( priir'J h\ rhe superirrr lorunt at a Iattcr date. 7. Thr: lcarned counsel for the appell. rr arguecl and contended that the condition imposed by the lear r ecl .Judge is not Supported by anl lau' and that the Sarne amotllt s to as though granting the mair-r relief of a\\rarding the mesne pr. lts a]ld u,ithout ascertaining, the sarne and directing the petiti I rer to pay the amounts $-hich amounts to as though granting tte relief rvhich ought to have br:en granted subsequently after il ,Certainment of mesne profits.

8. The learned counsel for the responder I by supporting the order of the trial Court have relied upon the j rdgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram properties pvl, Ltd vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltda in Para 8 It ii \!cll settlcd that merc prcfening ofan appcal t )!,s not oJ)cratc ils stav oI tlrc dccree or ordcl appealed against no )r] tllc n (2009) 1 scc 7os 7 l)rocccdings ill tlte coun bclos A praycr tirr tlle grant of sta\ 0t proccedings or on the execution ofdccree or ordcr appcaled agaillst llas to be specificalll made to the appellale Court and the appellatc Court has discretion to grant an order of stay or to reluse the same l'he only guiding tactor, indicated in the Rule 5 albresaid, is thc existence of sLrlllcient cause in tavour ol the appellant on thc availability' of uhich the aPpellate Court rvoulti be inclined to pass an order oi stay. Expcrience sho"vs that thc friniiIal consideration \\hicll prL-\'ril. r\ith the appellate Court is tlr'ti lrr spit. ot thc appcal having been cntcnaincd tbr hearing b) the apPellatc Coun. the appcllant may not bc depriYed ol'the iruits oi'his success in the elcnt of the appeal being allowed. This consideration is piLted and weighed agarnst the other paranlount consideration: rvhl should a party having succecded fiom thc Court below be dcprived ol the lruits ol tlte decrce or ordcr in his hands merely because thc delcated partl' has choscn to irlvoke the lurisdiction ol'a superior lorunr. Still the qtrestiorl rrlrich the ('oun ilealing rvith a pral-cr tbr lhc grant ol Sla) lsks to itself is. \\'lt-"' tlte status rluo prevailing on the dale ol'the dr'cree ilrrd/or the datc of nraLing of the application tbr stay be not allowed to conlrnue b1 granting stal' and not thc qucstion why thc stay should be granted. M.E.K.K. Varma vs. Ramoji Rao and otherss Para 34: So far as the second question is concerncd. the Supremc CoLrrr held that the liabilit) to pay the rent otherwise than under contractlral lcrms rvould arisc on the ordcr ofeviclion being passed. lhe answers u'ere provided in para l9 as under: ''To sum up, our conclusions are: ( I ) While passing an ordcr of stay urrder Rulc 5 ol Order 4l ot'the Code ol Civil Procedurc, 1908, the appellate court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonabll the dccree-ltolder for loss occasioned b)' delal in c\ecLrtion of "o,,,p.nrut" decret'by the grant oIstay order, in the cvent of thc appcal bcing dismissed and in so f'ar as those proceedings are concemed. Such terms. needless to sa). shall be reasonable. (2) ln case of prcmises governed by the prorisions ol the Delhi Rent Corrrrol Act, 1958. in vicw of the definition oftcnant containcd in clause ( I ) ol' Section 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminatcd merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing ol'the decrec fbr cviction. With effect front that date, lhe tcnant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the prcmises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to le{ out thc premises and eam rent il the tenant would have Yacaled the premiscs The iandlord is not bound by the contractual ratc of rent efl'cctive lor the period prcceding the datc of the decree. Para J5: [n State of Maharashtra v. Super Max lnternational l'rivatc Limited (l supra), the said principles rvere taken notc ol ln the conte\t of detertnination of the market rcrlt. thc tbnnula adoPted b) thc ' (2014) 2 ALD 110 i I I B .,,,,rnrcd. l.lrcir Lordships helC rr I r_,rs ,7 ancl 73 Ilombav High Cotrrl rlas I i-ll ils ultder. .,77. ln Lhe lrgltt ol.rhc discLrs ;:ff r,x::'ii":il Jri lili:iiilli',i,':;;J:""i'l:.ill I':1,":i:1i;f the appellare or rhe I., .i,,1,;1J (-6x1- ro sra\ rhc ,,r,.,,;; ,;, ;;: ii,l''n:' '" j".."" nn ,"n , i,rc,rr,tiUg ,, r,ir\ n,,nrlrr\ ,"" ':lT (,rrccrror ,,, ,l]f-'!.. ^ ' " I'tru or8ncr lhan lh( . \.'.'dlc" tn \.r) r..rl ,1,ir;,. .r-r ,rl rcnr \uhjccr ro fa\rr(.r , r \\,rich rhc erecurit,rr ur rl)! .,rJcr/,io.,. l],.,i:.l..i,11 rt \raye(r' lhc ('oun rroultl (.\, .i.(. rc5rr.inr and up11rJ ,,,,, lr.r,;,;r.:::.::, 'l',1 zt. t,, r ," .1,,.. n::il;: l..r * rr,ill..i:;l liri t,r'i :l,,,"ff ,1 il1.,i .: Ir:;t," # ,()r crniru,-c ,1,;;,,,,,,;,;;;li;11.1".-o:.'"'1 Irr rairn.'.,s r,r ir r ,rrir h. ,tid l'rnciful or punirivc amorr.r ;:;."i'J" l arnount on that ground.,, . l):rra -12: I urrrreri crtrr the respondents :uhtt i rh.rr ir rr,r, ptrhli'hcJ ,.,r,ir;,...,1, iji,,l:rl'::l .P," thc-principlc laid down l,r rc Srrprcrnc C.un in Sl:rlc ,,, i i^ i, .,^i,, i']'' Limired ( | .rn*; , .;,:;;'i:: ll.'j., '; t'p"' Max Inrernati r at privare l() the lacrs of lhc casc ,,,c figurcs arc ,or (Ji.rurc\r i,,,. ,,,,"i ,:,,,,;llii:: ;i: 1l"fiijrn;;I.i"-"^,1:; I i6 )0.{)0u ,r,,,,,r, , Rl qu-,i,,. ,;;;,.',;:;.I;lJ.l r:lyJ j:,. n,=-;,1,',:' I : l;l:l "J :; );::* ;l;;i ;;,, " ; .',,'J'';l,11,.:f thir hasi'; uould bc.-Ri i .lq.i75/- ll cltr oc l,rrrncit'ri ,,' , ia' l'i',,n-1" ?n p.r.r rhe r,.'r:r ar rr.,r r.,r" ;;;,1,',;: 'ilnt .lltc.respondents can i', .lJrrrd ro 'rpro rlrc.iirrc,,, ,rn.,-",'.i,.,i,J '].":,:' on'",.' wltercas thc rn( r.,r rcrlr .' ,, . ,.,tnll bc ts pcr lhc conlractual _, ( . paru 4J: t lcncc. C.R.p.N t6.ln to 2626 of 20lJ file.J . .rirr,r rirc ,.rccrs ot tt,c .\tp..rl.rrc nu,,,nj,] dircirir! rr,, ,, ,: ',.'i"r,")iJiu"']li .g*'line.srav. arc atto\\, APi"llrt;'A;;";;;; ';, l',,X'I :rn:],,:-nrha,rhr.re,forrden,rr,,.1l ,'n" "ir"#'.l,.deposit Ihe arrears of rent ca ( rlarcd (2 Rs. I.7.0o laklls. l*|" ,,, r,,r,. ',rr.',llr ll)L'date oi eviction. C.R.p.N, :027 ro 2h.rJ ot 20t.1. ,;r"a.-ri,,.i imr\\al ol rpplications for reic. i n o, thu irDpcats Jre dr iniij),cd In both the judgments relied upon by the r.spondent, the same are distinguishable for the reason that in both the judgments it was a tenant _o \\,Trer relationship, and the issue inr.olved uas whether the tenant u,as paying rent and also the q.r rntUm of rent which had already been prescribed. In the present c: ie, it is a suit filed for declaration anrl possession, seeking possess i rn of the suit t schedule property from the defendant and also a decree directing 9 the defendant to pay damages for illegal use arrd occupation of the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.4,0O0/ per month from

03.O2.2010, i.e,, lrom the date of purcharsc. Thus, the plaintilT claimed the said quantum by way of damages from the date of purchase. It is not a case where the defendant was a tenant and there $'as an admitted quantum of rent rvhich rr,,as being paid prior to the filing of the suit. One of the reliefs claimed in the suit itself is for pavment of mesne profits. 9, As it is only on the ground that the said propertl is capable of fetching Rs.4,000/- per monlh, which is only a claim ol the plaintiff, whereas the said quantum has to be ascertained by the Court b-v.- follolving the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. Without such ascertainment of mesne profits and without the Court coming to a conclusion, directing the appellants / defendants to pay mesne prohts at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month by way of a condition for grant of slay amounts to granting the very reiief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit that too at an interim stage r.rnder Order XLI Rule 5 CPC pending appeal. Therefore, the condition imposed by the learned Judge is not appropriate and, prima facie, an error has been .-? 10 committed bv the learned trial court. As such. t,- s court leels that it is a fit case to interfere with the said findings.

10. Accordingh,. the Civil Revision petiti< n desen,es to be and accordingll, allorvecl, bv deleting the conditi rn imposecl s,hile granting st:rv. i.e., "Drrectir.rg the apltellants t r cleposit mesne prolrts/damages at the rate of Rs.4,000 I t,er month from 03.02.2010 ro till date zrnd to continue to deposr the same at the same rate till disposal of the appeal,,, and hou,ev,r. the condition to deposit the stLlt costs to the credit of the original ; rit. And, on such deposit, the plaintiff is entitled to receive dr l sarne ..,ithout furnishing security, subject to the result of the ap1 eal is kept intact and undistr-rrlred. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are penc I -rg, shall stald dismis sed //TRUE COPY' SD/ P PONNA KRISHNA ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderatr; d 2. One CC to Sri K R K Gargeya, Advocate (OPUC) 3. One CC to Sri Sunil B.Ganu, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies Ks/ABK Yt- r Et r_llrlrit{ lratslll: -4. ,, r.'1t I ( o o 0I itB ?126 ii : ',,i * fr,\') i_( .'^ ,.../ ,.::\2?' .:::'' HIGH COURT DATED:1111212025 ORDER CRP.No.1091 of 2019 Allowing the C.R.P. Without costs. G .oQ1 ff-,w