IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 23, 2025 Rachpal Singh alias Rashpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Parvinder Singh Uppal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Ms.Shruti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Uday Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondent.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J. CM-17772-CII-2025 The present application has been filed for placing on record Annexure P-3.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and Annexure P-3 is taken on record.

CR-3395-2024 Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated

20.12.2023 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, whereby, the petitioner- tenant was directed to pay mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- per month, in addition to the contractual rent.

The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, the respondent-landlord had initially filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, thereby, asserting about the petitioner to have been inducted as tenant in the month of March 2013, on the entire ground floor, consisting of two rooms, kitchen and bathroom of the house situated in Mohali and the rate of rent was Rs.13,000/- per month, which was supposed to be increased @ 10% every year. The eviction was sought, on the ground of personal necessity and vide order dated 11.08.2023, the eviction petition was allowed.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant had filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for seeking mesne profits was filed, thereby, claiming mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per month. In reply, the claim for mesne profits, at aforesaid rate, was resisted.

After hearing counsel for the parties and on appraisal of the material brought on record, vide impugned order, the Appellate Authority directed the payment of Rs.20,000/- per month, as mesne profits, in addition to the contractual rent, w.e.f 11.08.2023 i.e. the date of passing of the eviction order by the Rent Controller. Also, an option was given for payment of mesne profits to be made, either in cash or by way of bank draft and the said payment shall be made, month by month by 7^th day of that month. Furthermore, the respondent-landlord was also directed to file an undertaking on affidavit, making a statement that the amount so recovered by him, in terms of the aforesaid order, shall be refunded or remain available for adjustment in terms of any direction, which the Court may pass, at the time of final judgment and if any amount became liable to be refunded consistently, with the permission of the Court, the respondent-landlord shall refund the same, within the time provided by the Court for the purpose and the amount shall remain charged on the suit property.

Being not satisfied with the extent of mesne profits granted, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present revision petition.

Upon notice issued, the respondent made appearance.

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that for the assessment of mesne profits, the sole submission, made by respondent-landlord, ought not to be taken into consideration. In fact, it is submitted that for the assessment of the mesne profits, no material, as such, has been brought on record to establish about the prevalent rent, in the vicinity of the demised premises. No registered lease deed has also been brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant contends that determinative factors, such like, location, construction and other conditions, are also to be looked into. Relating to the same, nothing as such, has come on record. Even, the term settled should be reasonable, which should not prevent the tenant from pursuing the appeal any further.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that the tenant is liable to pay the mesne profits for the use and occupation of the demised premises, at the same rate, at wh