The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of mesne profits under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the consideration of previous legal principles in determining the appropriate mesne profits.

JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J. - By way of this revision petition modification of impugned order dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Amritsar has been sought on the ground that the mesne profits fixed is on a very higher side.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2004 the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the shop bearing No.34, situated on the ground floor of Bharat Hotel, Building No.11, Railway Link Road, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the 'demised premises') on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/-. It is stated to be an oral tenancy, accompanied by delivery of possession. Rent note dated 7 February 2004 was executed by the petitioner-tenant in favour of the respondentlandlord. Subsequently, from 8.8.2013, the rent is stated to have been increased to Rs.4500/- per month. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and had sought eviction of the petitioner/tenant inter alia on the ground that the demised premises was required by the respondent/landlord for his personal bona fide use and occupation. The Rent Controller vide order dated 31.3.2022 allowed this petition under Section 13 filed by the respondent/landlord and had ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises. The petitioner/tenant approached the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority in appeal, which is pending.

3. In the meantime, the respondent/landlord filed an application before the Appellate Authority praying that he be granted mesne profits during the pendency of the appeal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent/landlord before the learned Appellate Authority that accommodation similar to the demised premises fetched rent to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per month and as such the respondent/landlord is entitled to get mesne profits from the petitioner/tenant @ Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of ejectment i.e., 31.3.2022. In support, the respondent/ landlord presented the lease deed of a property situated in the area which was fetching rent of Rs.39,000/- per month; as also a copy of order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the former Appellate Authority, Amritsar in which the said Court had directed to pay Rs.1 lac per month as rent of the disputed property.

4. Petitioner/tenant contested this application and inter alia submitted that the rate of rent which was being paid by him was already excessive and that if mesne profits are to be fixed that can only be fixed to the extent of rent already being paid.

5. After considering all the documents on record as well as the submission of both the parties, the Appellate Authority deemed it proper to fix the mesne profits @ Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of order dated 31.3.2022. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant inter alia contends that the Appellate Authority has fixed the mesne profits by applying guesswork, as both the relied-upon lease deed, as well as the order dated 18.8.2018, did not clearly show that those properties are adjoining the demised premises. It is further submitted that the shop in question is very small and rent has already been increased from Rs.1200/- to Rs.4500/- per month. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner/tenant.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Atma Ram Properties Private Limited v M/s Federal Motors Private Limited, reported as 2005(1) SCC 705, it has been clearly held that tenant having suffered an order for eviction may continue his fight before the superior forum but the Appellate Court has the power to put the tenant/appellant on terms and direct the tenant to compensate the landlord by payment of a reasonable amount which is not necessarily the same as the contractual rate of rent. It has further been held that with the passing of the decree of eviction the tena