JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This order will dispose of six revision petitions i.e., CR-4208-2024, CR-4209-2024, CR-4210-2024, CR-4211-2024, CR-4212-2024 and CR-4242-2024 as common questions of law and fact are involved in all the said cases. In all the six revision petitions, challenge is to the separate orders of the same date i.e. 19.07.2024 vide which the application(s) of the respondent-landlord for mesne profits has been disposed along with application for stay moved by the petitioner(s). With the consent of the parties, CR-4208-2024 is being taken up as the lead case.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-landlord had filed six separate petitions for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioner(s)-tenant(s) from six different shops all situated in District Bathinda. The said shops are stated to be situated close to each other. In all the cases, vide separate orders dated 28.08.2023, the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 filed by the respondent-landlord was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the premises in question and were directed to vacate the said premises within a period of three months from the passing of the said order(s). Appeals were filed by all the petitioners against the said orders and along with appeal(s), application(s) for stay were also filed by the petitioners. The respondent-landlord had also filed application(s) for mesne profits in each of the six cases and the appellate authority as has been stated hereinabove, vide six different orders dated 19.07.2024 assessed the mesne profits to be Rs.22,000/- per month and directed the petitioners to pay the same on the following terms and conditions:-

'11. In the lights of the facts and the law exposited above, I find merit in the instant application and it is allowed accordingly. The execution of the order appealed from is hereby stayed, pending the appeal filed by the appellant, subject to the following conditions:

12. It is made clear that the amount quantified by this Court in this order is only a tentative opinion formed by the Court on the basis of the material made available by the parties and is neither a determination of the actual amount for which the appellant may be held liable for payment to the respondent in duly constituted proceeding for the purpose nor is intended to be a reflection on the merits of the case.

13. The application under Order XLI, Rule 5, CPC moved by the appellant with a prayer to stay the execution of the order appealed from, pending the appeal filed by him, also stands disposed of accordingly.

14. To come up on dated 29.11.2024 for arguments on the appeal.'

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners have jointly submitted that the amount of Rs.22,000/- per month assessed by the appellate authority as being the amount of mesne profits is on the higher side inasmuch as it has been perversely observed that the prevailing rent for the same / similar building in the same locality is within the bracket of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. It is submitted that in fact the prevailing rate of rent in the locality is within the bracket of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further submitted that even a perusal of the application dated 21.10.2023 filed for mesne profits would show that even as per the case of the respondent herein, the prevailing rent was around Rs.23,000/- with respect to the similar shops and for the rent to be Rs.50,000/-, reference was made to only one shop of one Monudeep. It is stated that the said shop of Monudeep cannot even remotely be compared with the shops in question inasmuch as the said shop of Monudeep is a corner shop which is open from two sides and is well furnished and has a very good parking area. It is further stated that the said Monudeep Aggarwal is in fact the son of Kewal Krishan Aggarwal, who is one of the members of the pre