Civil Revision No.8239 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8239 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 21, 2011 Amrit Pal Singh .......Petitioner Versus The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Aalook Jagga, Advocate for the respondent. <><><> RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority on an application moved by the petitioner-landlord under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) for fixing the mesne profits/damages at the market rate during the pendency of appeal in which stay of dispossession from the demised property has been granted to the tenant. In brief, it deserves to be noticed that the tenant, who is in occupation of the Ground Floor of SCO No.129-130, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on Civil Revision No.8239 of 2010 -2- the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. The tenant filed statutory appeal along with an application for stay which was granted on 14.10.2010. At the same time, the present application under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC moved at the behest of landlord who had also filed certain lease-deeds in order to claim mesne profits at least @ `4 lacs per month from the date of order of ejectment was dismissed. Learned Appellate Authority, however, taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Federal Motors Pvt.Ltd., 2005(1) SCC 705 and a judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh v. Dr. Davinder Mohan, 2006(2) RCR (Rent) 486 held that “as per law laid down in different authorities mentioned above, a tenant is liable to pay the mesne profits/damages at the market rate in case the tenant wants to keep the possession of the property comprised in appeal during the pendency of the appeal and is liable to pay the mesne profits at the market rate”, but still mesne profits has been ordered to be paid only @ `50,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in terms of the order, an amount of `50,000/- has been paid. Opening his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although learned Appellate Authority has observed that in terms of the order of the Apex Court and the judgment of this Court, the damages have to be paid at the market rate but the amount of `50,000/- has been fixed arbitrarily without giving any reasons. He also submits that the landlord had already placed on record various lease deeds from which the Court could have easily gathered the rent of similar premises on the day Civil Revision No.8239 of 2010 -3- when the tenant was ordered to be evicted. To support his submission, he has referred to the decision in the case of Anderson Wright and Co. v. Amar Nath Roy and others, 2005 (3) PLR 666, M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005(1) SCC 705 (SC) and three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd., 2009(2) RCR (Rent) 246 in which the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties (supra) was upheld. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh v. Dr.Davinder Mohan, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 781 in which the damages were actually determined. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the case of M/s Atma Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the amount of damages which was fixed by the Appellate Authority and had not assessed the amount of damages which was claimed by the landlord in that case as rent of the adjoining property owned by him. He further submits that the lease deed, executed between the parties upto the year 2015, even if not registered, can be taken into consideration. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that learned Appellate Authority has erred in assessing the mesne profits or the damages for use and occupation of the demised premises as nothing has been discussed by it in that regard. Thus, order dated 14.10.2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the application for mesne profit after taking into account the evidence led by both the parties in that regard. It is Civil Revision No.8239 of 2010 -4- directed that the Appellate Authority shall pass a speaking order on the basis of the evidence made available. Till the matter is finally decided by the Appellate Authority, the respondent is directed to keep on paying 50,000/- per month as damages to the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) February 21, 2011 JUDGE SRM