CR No.2393 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2393 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.04.2011 Devinder Singh . . .Petitioner Versus Jagdish Singh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Achin Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CM Nos.10025 & 10026-CII-2011 Applications are allowed as prayed for. CR No.2393 of 2011 This revision petition is directed against order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Bathinda by which while granting stay, petitioner has been asked to pay mesne profit for the use and occupation of the demised premises @ `3500/- per month together with arrears of rent w.e.f. the year 1999 @ `1950/- per month. The petitioner has also been directed to pay the rent by 7th of each calendar month, failing which the order of stay would not enure. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises which was alleged to have been let out on rent @ `1950/- per month including house tax, electricity and water charges etc. w.e.f. 21.5.1999 on the basis of a rent note dated 21.5.1999. The learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 25.10.2010 assessed the provisional rent @ `1950/- per month from 28.5.1999 till the filing of petition @ 6% interest with cost of `500/-. Provisional rent was ordered to be paid on 8.11.2010. Admittedly, the tenant did not tender the provisional rent on the date fixed by the Rent Controller rather an application for recalling of the said order CR No.2393 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - was filed. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for recalling of the order of provisional assessment of rent on 8.11.2010 and on the same day passed the order of eviction against which the tenant filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority along with a prayer for stay of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord had earlier filed a Civil Suit No.451 dated 28.10.2002 against the present tenant for recovery of `83,187/- towards mesne profit for the period 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002 @ `1950/- per month and interest @ 12% per annum. The said suit has been dismissed by the learned Civil Court on 18.5.2010 against which, of course, the landlord has already filed an appeal which is pending but in that suit landlord had made a statement which is translated into English as “it is correct that Devinder Singh had not executed any rent note of the house in question in my favour”. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, argued that if the rent note was not executed then the question of rate of rent @ `1950 does not arise much less the arrears of rent which has been ordered to be paid by the Rent Controller vide its order of assessing the provisional rent, on the non-payment of which he has been ordered to be evicted on 8.11.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Undisputedly, the order of assessment of provisional rent was passed by the Rent Controller, which is neither tendered on 8.11.2010 nor he challenged the said order by way of a revision before this Court rather he adopted a wrong way of filing an application for recalling of the order which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, the stay application was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the eviction order was passed. It is now well settled that after the order of eviction, the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end and the tenant remains in possession as a statutory tenant who is liable to pay the mesne profit for the use and occupation of the demised premises in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Atma Ram Properties Private Limited Vs. M/s Federal Motors Private Limited” 2005(1) SCC 705. The Rent Controller while assessing the amount of rent @ `1950/- per month has observed that if the rate of rent was `1950/- in 1999 as per the alleged rent note dated 21.5.1999 then it should be at least @ `3500/- per month in 2011 which has been ordered to be paid. Insofar as the question of finding of the Civil Court and the statement made by the landlord in those proceedings about the execution of the rent note are concerned that would be seen by the Appellate Court in due course. CR No.2393 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present case to disturb the impugned order whereby stay has been granted subject to certain conditions which have been rightly imposed upon the tenant. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 20, 2011 JUDGE Vivek