CR No.2123 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2123 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2011 M/s Ashoka Tractors and another . . .Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CM No.8418-CII-2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. CR No.2123 of 2011 (O&M) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur as Appellate Authority on 15.6.2010 by which mesne profit has been fixed @ `5200/- per month and ordered to be paid from 22.12.2008 onwards. In brief, the landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 22.12.2008. The tenant filed the statutory appeal along with application for stay in which stay was granted subject to payment of arrears of rent @ `165/- per month. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord filed an application for payment of mesne profit for use and occupation of the demised premises by the tenant in which notice was issued. Both the partied filed their respective affidavits and while dismissing the main appeal on 15.6.2010, the Appellate Authority allowed the application for mesne profit. CR No.2123 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Aggrieved against the order of eviction, tenant filed revision petition before this Court but remained unsuccessful and ultimately the order of the Rent Controller was upheld by the Apex Court as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was an understanding between the counsels for the parties before the Appellate Authority that the landlord would argue the main appeal and would not press the application for mesne profit. He also submits that the learned Appellate Authority has erred in assessing the mesne profit @ `5200/- per month. He also submits that the mesne profit has been fixed w.e.f. 22.12.2008 whereas the application was filed by the landlord on 11.1.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, there is no proof placed on record of this Court with regard to understanding between the counsels for the parties that the landlord would not press the application for mesne profit therefore, first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby rejected. Insofar as rate of mesne profit is concerned, the learned Appellate Authority has taken into consideration evidence led by both the parties by which the landlord has shown that the prevailing market rent was `7900/- per month whereas the tenant had shown that it was `4200/- per month for an area of 10 square yards @ 175/- per month. The learned Appellate Authority assessed the mesne profit @ `5200/- per month. In my view, there is no error in the order of the Appellate Authority in assessing the mesne profit. The last argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mesne profit has been fixed from 22.12.2008 whereas the application was filed on 11.1.2010 is concerned it is made clear that the tenant after having been lost before the Rent Controller is deemed to be in unauthorized possession over the demised premises, therefore, the Court has rightly assessed mesne profit from the date of his eviction i.e. 22.12.2008. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 07, 2011 JUDGE Vivek