CR No. 193 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 193 of 2013 Date of decision February 12, 2013 Pawan Kumar ...... Appellant Vs. Krishan Lal ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision petitioner is aggrieved that the Appellate Authority while granting stay, on objection from the landlord has assessed the mesne profits at `3,000/- per month. This according to him was on a mere assertion by the landlord that the property would fetch a rent of `5,000/-. The landlord, according to the counsel has not placed any document to support his assertion. He would urge that a small property in the same locality has been assessed at a fair rent of `550/-. It is therefore contended that the amount fixed by the Court is therefore arbitrary. 2. I will find no reason to interfere with the orders which are purely discretionary to grant stay. The amount which is CR No. 193 of 2013 2 ordered to be paid must be understood as mesne profits payable by a person in wrongful possession, assuming his continuance despite an order of ejectment to be not tenable. If the tenant is successful in appeal the amount paid in excess over the contracted rent shall become refundable to him. To that extent the amount that is directed itself is not conclusive of the rights of parties. 3. Counsel for the petitioner still has a grievance that the Appellate Authority has characterized the amount as provisional rent and points to the untenability of such a direction when the landlord himself is before the Appellate Authority in cross appeal seeking for determination of rent at `750/-. I clarify the amount directed by the Appellate Court is not to be considered as provisional rent but mesne profits as determined provisionally as a condition for granting an order of stay. The consequences of such deposit will be as I have already indicated above, to obtain refund; in the event of success by the tenant. 4. With this clarification the Civil revision is disposed of, maintaining the order already passed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 12, 2013 arhana