CR No.3483 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.3483 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2011 Ramesh Verma . . .Petitioner Versus Ms. Parvesh Rani and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S. Bains, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 27.4.2011 by which he has disposed of two applications, one filed by the tenant for staying execution of the order of eviction and the other filed by the landlord for payment of mesne profit during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Appellate Authority, on appreciation of evidence available on record, found that end of justice would be met if `5000/- per month is paid by the tenant to the landlord for use and occupation of the demised premises. In order to ensure reimbursement of the excess payment if made by the tenant to the landlord, the learned Appellate Authority has also ordered the landlord to furnish an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller that he would reimburse the excess amount if it is ultimately found at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the amount of `5000/- is on a higher side and has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Super Max International Private Limited and others” 2009(9) Supreme Court Cases 772 to contend that the amount of mesne profit may be ordered to be deposited in Court and the CR No.3483 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - landlord may be allowed to withdraw only the amount of rent which was fixed between the parties @ `400/- per month. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in the same judgment, it has been ordered by the Supreme Court that if the Court finds that the amount of mesne profit is to be paid to the landlord then the Court may make an appropriate arrangement for ensuring its reimbursement. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition because mesne profit/rent @ `5000/- has been fixed by the learned Court below after taking into account the lease deed of Booth No.15, Sector 27, Chandigarh which has been rented out @ `15,000/- per month on 15.10.2010. Insofar as the direction sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner for deposit of mesne profit in the Court is concerned, I am satisfied with the direction already given by the Appellate Authority to the landlord for ensuring the reimbursement of the excess amount, if any, ultimately to be found by the Court at the time of final disposal of the appeal because if the tenant would violate the undertaking given in this regard then he would make himself liable for the action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 26, 2011 JUDGE Vivek