IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
CR No. 3106 of 2016 (O&M)
Inderjit & Anr.
v.
Kamal Kishore
{Decided on 16/01/2017}
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Eviction--Mesne Profits--The lease deeds are to be of the same locality and of a similar building to show the prevalent rate of rent which the landlord was entitled during the pendency of the appeal of the tenant. (Para 4)
Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure P4) passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby the mesne profits had been fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month, from the date of eviction order, i.e., 16.03.2016.
2. A perusal of the impugned order goes on to show that the rate of rent was Rs.175/- of the shop situated at Arya Samaj Chowk, Patiala, which was rented out in the year 1973. The said order does not depict that whether any registered lease deed was taken into consideration while fixing the mesne profits. The issue is no longer res integra. It has been time and again held that the fixation of mesne profits is to be on the basis of some registered documents and it cannot be fanciful, at the discretion of the Court. In the absence of any such registered lease deed being produced by the respondent-landlord, this Court is of the opinion that the order itself is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
3. The law on the said issue is that once the order of eviction has been passed, the contractual rate of rent inter se the parties comes to an end was laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (1) SCC 705. The view was followed in Anderson Wright and Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy, [2005(2) Law Herald (SC) 657] : 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 831 and by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and another vs. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others, [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3354] : 2009 (9) SCC 772. It was further held that the amount of mesne profits should not be excessive, fanciful or a punitive amount. The relevant observations read thus:-
“In light of the discussions made above we hold that in an appeal or revision preferred by a tenant against a order or decree of an eviction passed under the Rent Act it is open to the appellate or the revisional Court to stay the execution of the order or the decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent. Needless to say that in fixing the amount subject to payment of which the execution of the order/ decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount.”
4. This Court in Surender Kumar vs. Rattan Lal, 2006 (2) PLR 200 held that while fixing the mesne profits, registered lease deeds are a valid parameter and a toolbar to fix the mesne profits. It was held that the assessment should be on the basis of some relevant material and the tenant should be protected so that the amount which is to be deposited can be refunded in case the appeal is successful. The lease deeds also were to be of the same locality and of a similar building to show the prevalent rate of rent which the landlord was entitled during the pendency of the appeal of the tenant. The relevant observations read thus:-
“8. The other questions that requires consideration is the mode of determination of the mesne profits or compensation payable. In this respect, it is appropriate to note that the same is to be done on the basis of materials placed on record by the parties. The parties would be at liberty to place cogent evidence by way of recent registered lease deeds of the locality to show their amount of rent which is payable. It is on the basis of such convincing material that a provisional assessment of the compensation/damages which the tenant is liable to pay the landlord pending his appeal or revision against an order of ejectment, can be determined. This provisional assessment that has been made would be subject to adjudication at the time of final disposal of the appeal or revision as the case may be. If the final adjudication by the appellate or revisional Court in respect of the damages or compensation payable by the tenant is at variance with the provisional order, the landlord would be liable to reimburse or refund the excess amount deposited by the tenan
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.