The assessment of mesne profits is necessary once ejectment of the tenant is ordered, and the rate should be based on the potential rental income for the premises, ensuring it is not excessive or arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. (oral) - This revision petition has been filed by the tenants being aggrieved of order dated 03.09.2019, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby mesne profits @ Rs.1,71,600/- have been assessed for the premises in question. It has been directed that in case of compliance of the conditions mentioned in the impugned order, operation of the order of ejectment of the petitioners dated 01.04.2019, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, would remain stayed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that ejectment of the petitioners was ordered by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 01.04.2019 in a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, filed by the respondent-landlord. Demised premises is an area measuring 17' x 17' with three show windows (Corner Portion) on the the ground floor of SCO Nos. 49-50-51, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. It is a matter of record that the property in question is in one of the main commercial shopping areas in the city of Chandigarh. Landlord-respondent sought mesne profits and produced a registered lease deed dated 04.01.2012 pertaining to a built up area of 2400 square feet on the ground floor of SCO Nos. 123-124, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, which is admittedly in the close vicinity of the demised premises. The term of the above said lease deed is 9 years and 11 months commencing w.e.f. 01.02.2012. The rate of rent was Rs.7,50,000/- per month with a revision of 5% increase per annum in the monthly rate of rent. Admittedly, the present petitioners-tenants did not place on record any lease deed or any other evidence to rebut the claim set up by the respondent-landlord in respect to the rate of mesne profits sought. Dispute regarding the authenticity of the said lease deed was also not raised, which is in fact admitted. The only ground raised on behalf of the petitioners-tenants, even before this Court, is that they are not liable to deposit any mesne profits in the present case for the reason that the respondent-landlord is the owner of the demised property to the extent of 50% only. It is submitted that there are other co-owners, who have initiated proceedings against the present petitioner and that some of the co-owners have also received substantial amount towards rent, from the petitioners, who are being subjected to unnecessary harassment. It is submitted that initially the property i.e. SCO 49-50-51, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh was purchased by the respondent - Vidya Sagar and his brother Siri Ram in a public auction held by the Chandigarh Administration on 26.05.1968 as per allotment letter dated 05.06.1968. Litigation has multiplied amongst co-owners after the death of Siri Ram, the brother of the respondents. Particulars of the owners with their respective shares as per the estate office record is duly mentioned in para 4 of the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not deny that the respondent-landlord Vidya Sagar is the owner of the property to the extent of 50% and it is not denied that the petitioners have accepted the respondent to be the landlord from whom the premises were taken on rent in the year 1978.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vociferously argued that the learned Rent Controller has wrongly allowed the petition filed by the respondent-landlord and incorrectly ordered ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises. It is submitted that in the wake of all the co-owners filing separate ejectment petitions, the present rent petition filed by the respondent-landlord, in any case, is not maintainable. Therefore, fixation of mesne profits by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh in this case is unjustified and uncalled for. The other co-owners have also filed applications for fixation of the mesne profits. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners submits that the appeal itself be directed to be heard by the learned Appella