Judgment :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

Since the challenge in all the above referred to six civil revision petitions is same, therefore, the above referred to six civil revision petitions are decided, vide this common order. The petitioners are asking for setting aside of order dated 23.05.2025 passed by learned Appellate Rent Authority, Jalandhar whereby application for assessment of mesne profits was decided and mesne profits was assessed to be Rs.12,000/- per month and the petitioner (s) were directed to pay mesne profit @ Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of passing of the order of eviction along with all arrears of rent @ Rs.800/- per month to the respondent (s) before the Executing court within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of order dated 23.05.2025.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner (s) contends as under:-

(i) That the learned Appellate Rent Authority, Jalandhar while relying upon the rate of gold, straightway increased the amount of rent to fifteen times more than what was paid by the petitioner (s).

(ii) That the learned Appellate Rent Authority, Jalandhar increased the amount of rent paid by the petitioner (s) to fifteen times without appreciating the age, location, construction & condition of the property in dispute and assessibility from and to, facilities inside the premises, parking space etc. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 be set aside.

(iii) He relied upon following judgments:-

3. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent (s) contends that the mesne profits assessed by learned Appellate Rent Authority, Jalandhar, vide its order dated 23.05.2025 is on the lower side and learned Appellate Rent Authority, Jalandhar did not take into consideration unregistered lease deed in the vicinity of the property in dispute placed on record by the respondents wherein monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- per month in the year 2023 was settled. He further contends that he has also challenged the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 for enhancement of mesne profits by filing revision petitions bearing Nos. 49352025 and connected matters.

4. He also relied upon following judgments:-

(i) Raj Kumar vs. Harminder Singh Taneja , 2023 (2) RCR (Rent) 315 .

(ii) Paul Rubber Industries vs. Amit Chand Mitra , 2023 (2) RCR (Rent) 472 .

(iii) Sukhjinder Singh vs. Khushwant Rai Joshi , 2020 (1) RCR (Rent) 289 .

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

6. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant paras of the impugned order dated 23.05.2025, which are reproduced as under:-

'5. In light of the above facts, it cannot be denied that the property in question is situated in a commercial area, is being used for a commercial purpose. As per copy of lease deed placed on record by the respondents, a similarly situated property with a carpet area of 2896 sq.feet has been taken on lease by HDFC Bank Ltd. For Rs 170000/- per month whereas another shop measuring about 270 sq. ft, in the vicinity of the property in dispute has been rented out for a monthly rent of Rs 30000/- per month in the year 2023. This goes to show that the market rate of rent in the area in which the property in dispute is situated has burgeoned manifold, so the appellants cannot be allowed to retain the possession of the same merely by continuing to pay the agreed rate of rent ie-Rs 800/- per month. It also cannot be lost sight of that even the gold rate has escalated sharply since 1990 thereby making out a strong case for increase in the rate of rent/occupation charged of commercial property Having compounded