Damages for use and occupation by a tenant holding over are not mesne profits attracting additional court fee.

The petitioner-landlord instituted O.S. No. 1281/2016 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, seeking ejectment and damages against the respondents, who had occupied the premises as tenants.

The claim for damages was valued at ₹32,50,000 at the time of filing the suit.

By judgment dated 5 February 2025, the trial court partly decreed the suit and awarded the petitioner arrears of rent for the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 January 2025, quantified at ₹1,12,60,800.

It further directed payment of the contractual monthly rent from 1 February 2025 until delivery of vacant possession, describing the amount as damages for use and occupation.

Subsequently, the office raised an objection requiring the petitioner to pay a deficit court fee of ₹1,54,625 on the ground that the amount awarded constituted mesne profits.

Relying on Faredoon Maneckji Dalal v. Phiroze Bomanji Javeri , the trial court directed payment of the deficit court fee under Section 42 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the amount awarded for the tenant’s continued occupation after termination of the tenancy constituted “mesne profits” under Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, attracting additional court fee under Section 42 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958?

Whether the amount payable at the contractual monthly rent constituted “rent” or damages for use and occupation by a tenant holding over, governed by Section 41(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, rather than mesne profits under Section 42?

Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines mesne profits as profits which a person in wrongful possession actually received, or might with ordinary diligence have received, together with interest on such profits.

Order XX Rule 12 CPC contemplates an adjudication or inquiry into mesne profits where such relief is granted.

Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 governs suits between landlord and tenant, and the Explanation to Section 41(2) provides that “rent” includes damages for use and occupation payable by a tenant holding over.

Section 42 applies specifically to suits involving mesne profits and permits court fee to be assessed on the amount determined as mesne profits.

The Court distinguished the principle relied upon from Faredoon Maneckji Dalal v. Phiroze Bomanji Javeri , 1995 (1) ALL MR 28, which concerned the requirement of additional court fee on mesne profits determined under the Bombay Court Fees Act.

The Court held that the respondents’ possession originally arose from a valid landlord–tenant relationship and did not commence as wrongful possession.

Although the tenancy was subsequently terminated, the trial court did not determine the profits actually earned or reasonably capable of being earned from the property, nor did it direct an inquiry into mesne profits.

Instead, it quantified the amount payable by applying the agreed monthly rent and directed payment at that rate until possession was delivered.

This was compensation for continued use and occupation by a tenant holding over, falling within the concept of “rent” under Section 41(2) and its Explanation, rather than mesne profits under Section 42.

The mere use of the expression “damages” in the decree, or the fact that occupation continued after termination of tenancy, did not alter the legal character of the amount awarded.

Accordingly, the trial court erred in treating the quantified contractual rent as mesne profits and in demanding additional court fee under Section 42.

The amount of ₹1,12,60,800 awarded for the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 January 2025, and the amount payable thereafter at the contractual monthly rent until delivery of possession, were not mesne profits attracting additional court fee under Section 42 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

The order dated 9 July 2026 directing the petitioner to pay a deficit court fee of ₹1,54,625 was set aside.

The writ petition was allowed, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.