In the recent case of Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar Huf v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, drawing support from its earlier judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Private Limited, held that if a tenant continues to be in possession of the rented premises even after his right to do so stands extinguished, then the landlord would be entitled to receive compensation in the form of ‘mesne profit’ from the tenant.

While arriving at this position, the Court found it pertinent to refer to the concept of ‘tenant at sufferance’. A tenant at sufferance refers to a tenant who enters upon the land by lawful title but continues in possession after the title has ended without statutory authority and without obtaining consent of the person then entitled.

Clarifying positions related to nomenclature, the court observed as under:

“In our considered view, the effect of the words ‘determination’, ‘expiry’, ‘forfeiture’ and ‘termination’ would, subject to the facts applicable, be similar, i.e., when any of these three words are applied to a lease, henceforth, the rights of the lessee/tenant stand extinguished or in certain cases metamorphosed into weaker iteration of their former selves…Therefore, in any of the these situations, mesne profit would be payable.”