MOHAN LAL V.

SHRI KRISHAN, 1977 (2) RCJ 505

Facts:

The case involves a petitioner-tenant named Mohan Lal, who challenged an order passed by
the Addl. District Judge, Churu, regarding the execution of a decree of eviction issued by the
Civil Judge (JD) of Sujangarh, District Churu, on 15.12.2012 in a Civil Original Suit No.
28/2010 titled "Krishna Kumar v. Mohan Lal." The petitioner seeks to challenge the order
imposing conditions for staying the execution of the eviction decree.

Issue:

The main issue is whether the conditions imposed by the Addl. District Judge, Churu, for
staying the execution of the eviction decree are reasonable and justifiable.

Procedural History:

The petitioner, Mohan Lal, had challenged the veracity of the order dated 23.7.2013 passed
by the Addl. District Judge, Churu. During the hearing, a previous court order had allowed
the petitioner to remain in the rented premises provided he deposited mesne profits at the rate
of Rs. 5,000 per month. This order was initially meant to be effective until 19.8.2013 but was
continued beyond that date.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the agreed rent for the shop in question was only Rs. 208.33 per
month, and imposing the condition of payment at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month as mesne
profits is arbitrary, unreasonable, and lacks evidence.
The petitioner claimed that the respondent-plaintiff did not file a reply to the stay petition and
did not provide evidence regarding the rental value of the shop, rendering the order arbitrary.
The petitioner also objected to being required to submit an undertaking of Rs. 1 lakh and to
having only one month's time to vacate the premises if the appeal was decided against him.
The petitioner cited legal precedent to support their arguments.
Respondent's Arguments:

The respondent relied on several legal cases, including Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v.
Federal Motors (P) Ltd., Udai Chand v. Shanker Lal, and others, to justify the conditions
imposed for staying the execution of the eviction decree.
The cases cited supported the idea that tenants should not be allowed to indefinitely delay
eviction on flimsy grounds.

Judgment:

After considering the arguments and legal precedents presented by both parties, Justice Atul
Kumar Jain upheld the impugned order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Churu, on
23.7.2013. However, the judgment introduced certain conditions to be observed:
The appellant-tenant should submit a bail of Rs. 1 lakh along with the undertaking mentioned
in the impugned order within two months before the Addl. District Judge, Suratgarh.
If the appeal is decided against the petitioner, the appellant will be granted two months to
vacate the premises.
The appellant must deposit Rs. 8,000 per month as mesne profits, in addition to contractual
rent, in the first appellate court. Of this amount, only Rs. 5,000 per month can be withdrawn
by the landlord, and the remaining Rs. 3,000 per month must be kept in a fixed deposit in a
nationalized bank. This amount and its accrued interest will be given to the entitled party as
per the judgment of the appeal.
The landlord must give an undertaking before the first appellate court to return the deposited
amount to the tenant within two months if the appeal is decided against the landlord.

Comments:

The judgment concludes by disposing of the petition and stay petition accordingly, and
instructs that a copy of the order be sent to the lower court by speed post.

Please note that the information provided is a summary and interpretation of the text you
provided and should not be considered as legal advice or an official legal analysis. For
accurate and detailed legal information, consult with a qualified legal professional or refer to
the original court documents.