The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in determining the admissibility of an unregistered lease agreement for assessing mesne profits.

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

1. Petitioner was ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh in an eviction petition filed by landlord-respondent on the ground of bonafide personal necessity from the tenanted premises which consists of SCO No. 129-130, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh vide order dated August 14, 2010. Two months' time was granted to vacate the premises. The tenant-petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short 'the Act', as applicable to Chandigarh, against ejectment order. The landlord-respondent being on caveat sought mesne profits. The Appellate Authority vide order dated October 14, 2010, without taking into consideration the grounds of ejectment, stayed the ejectment subject to the petitioner paying mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. August 15, 2010. The respondent-landlord preferred revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated October 14, 2010. The High Court in Civil Revision No. 8239 of 2010 set aside the order dated October 14, 2010 and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority, vide order dated February 21, 2011 (annexure A-3).

2. The Appellate Authority thereafter assessed the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs per month taking into consideration the rent prevalent in the vicinity which lead to filing of present revision petition by the tenant.

3. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner Bank had been inducted in the year 2000 on the basis of an unregistered lease agreement Annexure P-2 dated July 31, 2000 and the Rent was enhanced from Rs. 8596/- to Rs. 25000/- per month at the rate of 20% for every three years w.e.f. January 2000. The period of tenancy was extended for a period of 15 years i.e. till January 2015 as per the unregistered lease agreement dated July 31, 2000. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the enhanced rent from 2000 to 2003 was Rs. 25000/- per month, from 2003 to 2006, it was Rs. 30000/- per month, for 2006 to 2009, it was Rs. 36000/- per month, from 2009 to 2012, it was Rs. 43900/- per month and from 2012 to 2015, it was Rs. 51840/- per month. The landlord had been accepting the revised rent at the above said rates.

4. It is interesting to note that the respondent-landlord had availed a term loan of Rs. 15 lacs which was to be re-paid from the rent payable by the bank in terms of lease agreement dated July 31, 2000. Copy of the loan agreement has been appended as annexure P-4. On December 30, 2006, the landlord executed deed of assignment Ex.P-2 acknowledging that he had leased out the demised premises in favour of the Bank vide lease deed dated July 31, 2000 and against the assignment of rent payable by bank, the loan shall be re-paid. Copy of the deed of assignment is part of the record as annexure P-5.

5. The Bank claims that according to the escalation clause in the year 2006 the rent payable by the Bank was Rs. 36000/- per month. The ejectment petition having been filed vide letter annexure P-5, dated March 22, 2005, the landlord asked the tenant that in case the tenant is ready to enhance the rent to Rs. 1.70 lacs per month he could settle and withdraw the ejectment proceedings. He also offered additional space for generator set as he had 600 sq. ft. available on the basement of the tenanted premises. He offered the said area for Rs. 18000/- per month. The petitioner bank claims that in view of the circumstance that the landlord had already agreed to claim enhanced rent till January 2015, he was not entitled for any amount beyond the rate of enhancement agreed to. He had agreed to the escalation at the rate of 20% every three years on the rent of Rs. 25000/- per month vide lease agreement dated 31.7.2000 as such he would not be entitled to mesne profits beyond the agreed rent. Once he has entered into the lease agreement for 15 years, neither his eviction petition was maintainable nor he was entitled