IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:03.11.2025 PAWAN BHATIA …Petitioner VERSUS BALDEV KRISHAN SETHI …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL. J (ORAL)

1. In present case, petitioner-tenant has challenged impugned order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by appellate authority, Chandigarh vide which application for fixing mesne profit preferred by landlord was allowed in appeal preferred by tenant against his eviction, fixing mesne profit @ Rs.70,000/- per month.

2. Admittedly, eviction petition u/s 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 preferred by landlord was allowed by learned Rent Controller vide order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-1). Against that order, petitioner-tenant had preferred an appeal before first appellate Court. Before the first appellate Court, landlord-respondent had preferred an application under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC for fixation of mesne profits/damages at market rate as after eviction tenant is stated to be in illegal use and occupation of demised premises.

3. Learned Appellate Court after giving due opportunity and after considering lease deeds of similarly situated properties concluded and fixed mesne profits of demised premises at Rs.70,000/- per month. Paragraph No.7 of imugned order passed by learned Appellate Court, considering various lease deeds of comparable opportunities situated in the local area, is reproduced for ready reference:-

“In this case, admittedly, the area of the demised premises is 170 sq. yards i.e. more than the premises, which were let out as per lease deeds dated 23.05.2022 & 14.01.2022 relied upon by Learned Counsel for the applicant to fix the mesne profits. Admittedly, the eviction order was passed on 15.05.2023. A perusal of copy of lease deed dated 23.05.2022 placed on the file reveals that it was regarding letting out of shop No.36, old Ropar Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh. The lessee was bound to pay Rs.69,500/- w.e.f. 01.05.2022, which was increased to Rs.72,612/- with effect from 01.11.2023 for shop No.31 measuring 126.66 sq. yards. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has placed on record lease dated 02.04.2025, whereby shop No.32, old Ropar Road, Manimajra measuring 14.98 sq. yards besides a share in the House No.34 measuring 59.95 sq. yards was let out for Rs.25,000/- we.f. 01.01.2025. Thus, the area of the premises let out as per lease deed relied upon by Learned Counsel for respondent is much smaller than the demised premises involved in the present case, hence, lease deed dated 02.04.2025 cannot be looked into for determining the mesne profits in this case. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed on record lease deeds regarding the properties situated in the same locality where the demised premises is situated and rate of rent for those premises has been shown to be in between Rs.60,000/-70,000/-. Keeping n view the totality of the circumstances and the lease deeds placed on record by both the parties, this Authority fixes the mesne profit for the demised premises Rs.70,000/- per month.”

4. On consideration of reasoning noted above arrived at by learned Appellate Court, this Court finds no error in the same. The fixation of mesne profits in present case is totally based upon material on record as per market rate of similarly situated property within local area, where property is situated. Even if inflation rate is added to agreed rent of Rs.46,200/- per month being paid by petitioner in December 2020, then also fixed mesne profit cannot be held to be excessive. Moreover, rights of tenant has also been fully protected with direction that the amount shall be deposited in FDR fetching maximum rates and will be paid to person who succeeds in the appeal.

5. Therefore, no prejudice by impugned order is being caused to the petitione