Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

remanded

Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

remanded

Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 118 of 2021 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, seeking peaceful and vacant possession of premises and mesne profits based on a leave and license agreement. During the pendency of this suit, the petitioner moved an application (Exh.26/A) seeking relief for depositing mesne profits. The respondent concurrently filed Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2020 before the same court, relying on the same leave and license agreement, claiming protection of his possession.

The Trial Court passed an order directing the respondent to deposit Rs. 12,000 per month in court until the final disposal of the suit, despite the leave and license agreement containing an escalation clause of 5% per annum. The petitioner challenged this order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Trial Court erred in directing the respondent to deposit a fixed monthly amount of Rs. 12,000 without considering the escalation clause of 5% per annum in the leave and license agreement.
  2. Whether the impugned order, being cryptic and without reasons, should be quashed and set aside.
  3. Whether the Trial Court should be directed to reconsider the application after proper consideration of the terms of the leave and license agreement and after hearing both parties.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the leave and license agreement stipulated a license fee of Rs. 12,000 per month with a 5% annual escalation clause. The Trial Court’s order directing the respondent to deposit Rs. 12,000 per month was cryptic and lacked any reasoning as to why the escalation clause was disregarded. The Court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders and found the impugned order deficient for failing to consider the escalation clause explicitly stated in the contract. Consequently, the Court held that the order must be quashed and set aside, directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application afresh with due attention to the leave and license agreement and after hearing both parties.

Holding and Implications

The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

The Trial Court is directed to decide the application afresh by properly considering the leave and license agreement, including the escalation clause, and after hearing both parties. The petition is disposed of accordingly. This decision directly affects the parties by requiring a reconsideration of the mesne profit deposit amount but does not establish any new precedent.

Show full summary ...

    Hareshbhai Kanjibhai Patel v. Shankerbhai Prabhulalbhai Maheshwari

    J.C. Doshi, J.:— Heard learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat for the petitioner. Though served none appears for the respondent.

    2. Present petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 118 of 2021 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad seeking peaceful and vacant possession of the premises and mesne profit basing relationship on leave and license agreement. Pending suit, application Exh.26/A was moved seeking relief of depositing mesne profit.

    3. The respondent has also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2020 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad based on the very leave and license agreement claiming protection to his possession.

    4. Learned Trial Court has passed the following order below Exh.26/A:—

    “Read. Heard.

    It is prayed by plaintiff to direct defendant to deposit outstanding amount of Rs. 5,95,000/- towards rent whereas defendant has declared vide pursis Exh. 28 that till date he has deposited Rs. 1,08,000/- and also produced copies of the receipt regarding deposit of rent in court. The defendant has denied that Rs. 5,95,000/- is outstanding towards rent. It appears from the copies of receipt produced by defendant that he has paid/deposited amount in court during year 2020 to 2022 in installment. It is not disputed that, defendant is licencee of disputed property and he is liable to pay licence fees to plaintiff. At this juncture it seems reasonable to direct defendant to pay/deposit Rs. 12000/- p.m. in court till final disposal of the suit. The amount so deposited shall be given set in time of final outcome of the suit.”

    5. Admittedly, contract of leave and license agreement indicates license fess of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. with escalation clause of 5% p.a. Learned Trial Court below without assigning any reasons, in cryptic order directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 12,000/- p.m. in the Court till disposal of the Suit. The Court has not given reason that why it has not read and considered escalation clause of 5% p.a. as stated in the leave and license agreement.

    6. In view of above, since the order impugned is without any reasons being cryptic as observed, has to go.

    7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Learned Trial Court is directed to decide the application afresh after applying due attention towards leave and license agreement and after hearing both the sides. It is expected that the application shall be decided as early as possible.

    8. In view of above, the petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Hareshbhai Kanjibhai Patel v. Shankerbhai Prabhulalbhai Maheshwari
    (Aug 22, 2023)