Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

1. The present judgment shall dispose of the abovesaid revision petition alongwith C.M. No. 26865-CII of 2014 which has been filed by the tenant-respondent in C.R. No. 7230 of 2014 for recalling the order dated 30.10.2014, whereby, the revision petition filed by the landlords was dismissed seeking enhancement of the mesne profits which is @ ` 1,50,000/- per month and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.09.2014 has been upheld. In the main revision petition i.e. C.R. No. 7296 of 2014, the tenant/petitioner is challenging the fixation of mesne profits vide the same order in the revision petition which has been filed subsequently. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority was not justified in fixing the mesne profits at such a high rate and submitted that in the same building, tenants are paying @ ` 8 per sq. ft. whereas in adjoining areas in the same sector, the rate of rent varies to a maximum of ` 40 per sq. ft. whereas, in the present case, since the tenant is in occupation of 1860 sq. ft., the rent works out at ` 80 per sq. ft., which is on excessive side. He submits that in the absence of an valuation report and keeping in view that the lease deed provided of an increase clause of 10%, the amount is fanciful and whimsical and accordingly, submitted that the order is liable to be set aside. The application bearing CM. No. 26865-CII of 2014 for recalling in the connected petition i.e. C.R. No. 7230 of 2014 is also being argued on the ground that the landlord, by virtue of the findings recorded by this Court on 30.10.2014, has tried to oust the petitioner by filing revision petition first for enhancement of the mesne profits and, therefore, the order should be recalled and the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Authority. Reliance has been placed on the observations of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad and another v. Atma Ram Chauhan and others, 2011(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 972 : 2011(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 394 : 2011 (7) SCC 755 and R.K. Bansal v. Jag Parvesh Sharma, 2012(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 203 : 2012(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 395 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 502 : 2012 (4) CCC 845 and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (2) Mh.LJ 134 which was further upheld by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and another v. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2011(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 972 : 2011(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 394 : 2011(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 972 : 2011(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 394 : 2009 (9) SCC 772.

2. The premises in question, as noticed, measures 1860 sq. ft. and is situated on the first floor of SCO No. 1-3, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. The rent petition was instituted on 25.10.2007 by the landlords contending that there was a registered lease deed dated 09.04.1996 and renewed from time to time and finally, vide agreement dated 30.11.2004, renewal was for a period of 3 years from 01.09.2004 to 31.08.2007 and the rate of rent was `22,600/- per month. The ground was of sub-letting and arrears from 01.10.2007. Eviction order was passed on 23.08.2014 by the Rent Controller on the ground of sub-letting whereas on the ground of nonpayment, the petition was rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the rent assessed by the Court had been paid.

3. In appeal, the application for mesne profits was filed by the landlords wherein, specific averment was made that the building in question comprised of 6 floors including the basement and there were many tenants in the building in question. The tenants on the second and third floor namely Crayons Advertising Ltd. and Mega Cabs. Ltd. were occupying 811 sq. ft. and paying monthly rent of ` 68,935/- which translated to ` 85 per sq. ft. which they had occupied in the year 2010 @ ` 1,40,000/-. Another tenant, the IDBI Bank Ltd. was occupying 1860 sq. ft. The rent had thereafter been increased to ` 1,61,000/- w.e.f. August, 2014 but the execution o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document