IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 04.12.2025 Shiv Kumar …Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar Arora …Respondent CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate For the petitioner.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This revision petition is filed by the tenants against the order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana fixed mesne profits at ₹5,000/- per month payable by the petitioners (tenants) for use and occupation of the demised shop pending disposal of the appeal.

2. The factual background is that the respondent-landlord, Suresh Kumar Arora, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop. The Rent Controller allowed the petition by order dated 11.12.2024. The tenant preferred an appeal, which is pending before the Appellate Authority. The landlord thereafter moved an application (Annexure P-3) for fixation of mesne profits at ₹6,000/- per month from the date of the ejectment order. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit mesne profits at ₹5,000/- per month by the 10th of every month from the date of eviction till final disposal of the appeal and also directed payment of arrears within 30 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the demised shop is small (10 ft. × 28 ft.) and the agreed monthly rent between the parties was ₹ 1,400/- fixed in 2019; therefore fixation of mesne profits at ₹5,000/- is excessive. It is also urged that the Appellate Authority erred in relying upon a rent deed dated 04.02.2022 produced by the landlord, which pertains to a comparatively large commercial area on the 2nd floor of Preet Complex, Jagraon, showing a rent of ₹23,152/- per month for 2025-26.

4. I have perused the paper-book and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority.

5. Mesne profits are granted as compensation for the use and occupation of the property by a person, who is not lawfully entitled to hold possession. In fixing mesne profits the Court may take into account, inter alia, the agreed rent between the parties, the market rate of rent in the locality, comparative rent agreements, the area and nature of the premises, the period for which possession is withheld, and any enhancement in the value or rent over time. The exercise is essentially discretionary and fact- sensitive; interference by this Court in a revision is warranted, only where the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, illegally or perversely.

6. The Appellate Authority noted that the rent of ₹1,400/- per month was fixed in 2019 and observed that the landlord has produced rent deed showing prevailing market rents in the same area. The rent deed dated 04.02.2022, though relating to a larger 5 Marla + 5 Sarsahi area on the 2nd floor of Preet Complex, is a contemporaneous piece of evidence, which demonstrates that rents in the locality have substantially risen since 2019. While the demised shop is admittedly small, it is also situated in the same commercial locality. The comparative evidence of higher rents in the area is, therefore, relevant to assess market rate for use and occupation. Mere disparity in area does not render them wholly irrelevant. What matters is that they reflect the trend and the contemporary level of rents in that locality.

7. The Appellate Authority adopted a middle course, in not accepting the landlord’s claim of ₹ 6,000/- in full, but fixing mesne profits at ₹5,000/-, which is a reasoned adjustment in view of (i) the obsolete agreed rent fixed in 2019, and (ii) the evidence of higher rents in the neighbourhood. There is nothing on record to justify treating the agreed 2019 rent as determinative of the mesne profits for the period after eviction, particularly when the landlord has produced contemporaneous documentary evidence of enhanced rents in the same area. The tenant has not produced convincing evidence to show