Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.: (Oral) - Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, under the Rent Act, whereby the mesne profits have been assessed qua the demised premises taking into consideration the rent assessment report dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure P-8) of the Valuer which was relied upon by the respondent-landlord, where the rent was assessed at Rs.90,000/- to Rs.95,000/- per month but the Appellate Authority has granted Rs.60,000/- per month.

2. It is the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the demised premises is having an area of 250 square yards, for which agreed rent was Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 2003. It has been asserted that it is a double storeyed building located in Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. The rent at present would not be more than Rs.25,000/- per month. He contends that the Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the pleadings and had merely proceeded to decide the mesne profits placing reliance upon the report of the Valuer, who had assessed the rent of the property and was engaged by the respondent-landlord, who had given the said report at the asking of the respondent-landlord. Neither any rent deed nor any evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the prevalent market rent which would justify the grant of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month to the respondent-landlord. He places reliance upon para 21 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmad and another Versus Atma Ram Chauhan and others [2011(5) Law Herald (SC) 3312] : 2011(7) SCC 755, where certain guidelines and norms have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and seeking support therefrom, he contends that the impugned order cannot sustain. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another Versus Super Max International Private Limited and others [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3354] : 2009 (9) SCC 772 to contend that the Court while assessing the mesne profits would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. In any case, he contends where mesne profits is assessed, which obviously is over and above the contractual monthly rent, it should not be directed to be paid to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision and it should only be released along with accrued interest after the final disposal to the party concerned depending upon the result of the case. He, thus, contends that the amount so assessed by the Appellate Authority, in case, is upheld, the said amount be not disbursed to the respondent-landlord during the pendency of the appeal.

3. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the caveator-respondent-landlord submits that the Appellate Authority has rightly taken into consideration the report of the Valuer, who had, keeping in view of the value of the property, proceeded to assess the prevalent market rent. In any case, he contends that the Court has exercised its judicial discretion in moderating the said amount and fixing the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month instead of Rs.90,000/- to Rs.95,000/- as assessed by the Valuer. He states that the petitioner had ample opportunity to file rejoinder to the report of the Valuer but despite there being three adjournments after the filing of the reply by the respondent-landlord, for arguments, neither any rejoinder has been filed nor any evidence placed on record in the form of a Valuer’s report or any rent/lease deed to project the prevalent market rent contrary to the one on record. He, thus, contends that the order impugned, being fully justified, do not call for any interference, especially when one of the aspects which can be taken into consideration as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmad’s case (supra), is valuation report. Prayer has thus been made for dismissal of the present revision petition.

4. I