C.R. No. 3436 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3436 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.07.2010 M/s Eastern Carpets, a partnership concern, having its Head Office at Green Avenue, Amritsar .......... Petitioners Versus Asha Mehta & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. III of 1949 to challenge the conditional order of stay granted to the petitioner in the appeal filed against the order of eviction. The respondent / landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner approached the learned Appellate Authority under Section 15(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. III of 1949 for stay of order of eviction. The application was opposed by the landlord / respondent claiming therein that they are entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per month, therefore, the stay C.R. No. 3436 of 2010 2 be granted, subject to deposit mesne profits @ Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per month. The learned Appellate Authority while allowing the application for stay held, that it is within the competence of the Appellate Authority to lay down condition for grant of stay subject to payment of mesne profits. The petitioner was paying rent @ Rs. 165/- (Rupees one hundred and sixty five only) per month. The learned Appellate Authority, keeping in view the accommodation, and the locality fixed mesne profit @ Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month by taking the rent for such premises to be Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) per month. The learned Appellate Authority followed principle, that mesne profits should be 7 to 10 times more than the contractual rate of rent by relying different authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no such formula can be laid down, as the mesne profits is to be fixed by taking into consideration material which may be available on record. There can be no dispute with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law that in order to assess the mesne profits, no fixed formula or arbitrary rent can be fixed, without there being any material on record. At the same time, the Appellate Authority cannot be helpless in absence of any material i.e. market rent to assess the rent on the basis of common sense. It can not be in disputed that the area in possession of the petitioner is three rooms, courtyard and kitchen at ground floor in the since 1972. Even if the basic principle of fixation of fair rent are C.R. No. 3436 of 2010 3 taken into consideration the assessment of mesne profit @ Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month cannot be said to be excessive, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order being just and equitable, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 19.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE