The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the landlord to claim mesne profits or damages for use and occupation of the premises during the pendency of revision petitions filed by the tenants, based on the legal principles established by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties case and other relevant cases.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. CM. 8196-CII of 2005 in C.R. 6463 of 2001, CM. 15946-CI1 of 2005 in C.R. 3447 of 2001, CM. 11452-11 of 2005 in C.R. 833 of 2002. This order will dispose of the above mentioned three CMs which have been filed during the pendency of the revision petitions as there is common question of law involved.CM. 8196 CII of 2005. This CM has been filed by the appellant (landlord-respondent in the petition) seeking vacation of the interim stay granted by this Court pending revision petition. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act - for short) seeking ejectment of the tenant-non applicant (petitioner) from S.C.F. 84, Section 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh, on the ground that the tenant had changed the user of the demised premises from grain shop to selling tea. In view of this, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, had initiated proceedings for misuse of the demised premises and had resumed the building vide order dated 8.10.1991. Further revision and appeal against the said order had been dismissed. The other ground for seeking ejectment of the tenant was non-payment of rent and also that the landlord required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner for ejectment of the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 3.10.1996. The Appellate Authority held that the premises were required by the landlord for his personal use. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 5.11.2001. Accordingly, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered. The tenant has assailed the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority in this by way of Civil Revision 6463 of 2001 in which notice of motion was issued on 6.12.2001. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.7.2003, dispossession of the tenant was stayed by this Court. The landlord has thus filed the present CM for vacation of said stay in which it is inter alia also prayed that the tenant be directed to compensate the landlord at the market rate for use and occupation of the premises after the passing of decree of eviction. The tenant has filed a reply to the said application in which it is stated that the order granting stay was passed by this Court on 15.7.2003 in presence of both the counsel for the parties. Therefore, the present CM is not maintainable. It is also stated that eviction on the ground of personal necessity in respect of commercial buildings is not maintainable and that S.L.P. in this regard is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court.

CM. 15946-C1I of 2005

This CM. has been filed by applicant (landlord-respondent) for fixing mesne profits/damages in respect of the demised premises i.e. S.C.F. 49, Sector 23-C. Chandigarh. It is prayed that non-applicant (tenant-petitioner) is liable to compensate the landlord for use and occupation of the premises w.e.f. the date of passing the ejectment order by the Appellate Authority on 6.5.2001. Reply to this CM has been filed in which it is submitted that there is no provision under the Act in terms of which the relief as claimed can be granted. Besides, Section 4 of the Act provides for determination of fair rent and it is only the learned Rent Controller who can fix fair rent after holding such inquiry as may be deemed fit. Besides, it is stated that the tenant cannot be directed to pay any amount over and above the amount of agreed rent as this Court vide its order dated 11.7.2001 has directed the tenant to continue to pay the agreed rent on or before 10th of every month. Therefore, it is submitted that in fact the landlord seeks a review of the order dated 11.7.2001 passed by this Court which is legally not permissible as there is no provision for review of the order and even otherwise the said order passed in presence of counsel for both the parties.

CM. 11452-CII of 2005

The applicant (landlord-respondent) has fil