The Supreme Court ruled that when a tenant remains in the rented property after their tenancy rights have been terminated, the landlord is entitled to receive 'mesne profit' as compensation from the tenant.

“While the above-stated position is generally accepted, it is also within the bounds of the law, that a tenant who once entered the property in question lawfully, continues in possession after his right to do so stands extinguished, is liable to compensate the landlord for such time period after the right of occupancy expires.”, the division bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol said.

Case Brief:

The issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether a tenant, who remains in the rented premises without an eviction order, is liable to pay the landlord compensation in the form of 'mesne profit'.

Agreeing with this stance, the Judgment penned by Justice Sanjay Karol noted that the tenant is indeed obligated to pay mesne profit to the landlord for the duration in which they were considered a 'tenant at sufferance'.

A "tenant at sufferance" is someone who initially enters the premises legally but continues to occupy the property after their legal right to do so has expired.

“we may record a prima facie view, that the respondent-tenant has for the reasons yet undemonstrated, been delaying the payment of rent and/or other dues, payable to the petitioner-applicant landlord. This denial of monetary benefits accruing from the property, when viewed in terms of the unchallenged market report forming part of the record is undoubtedly substantial and as such, subject to just exceptions, we pass this order for deposit of the amount claimed by the petitioner-applicant, to ensure complete justice inter se the parties.”, the court concluded.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vijaya Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Shaw, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Sohhom Sau, Adv. Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv. Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Anand, Adv. Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Adv. Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv. M/S. Legal Options, AOR

Case Title: BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF VERSUS ASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI