Ashwani Kumar v. Pardeep Kumar Deceased Through Lr'S
CR-793-2025 (O&M) Page 1 of 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-793-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.02.2025 Ashwani Kumar ...Pe琀椀琀椀oner(s) Vs.
Pardeep Kumar deceased through his LRs
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the pe琀椀琀椀oner. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The present revision pe琀椀琀椀on has been 昀椀led by the tenant laying challenge to the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby the mesne pro昀椀ts have been 昀椀xed @ Rs.10,000/- p.m.
2.
Learned counsel for the pe琀椀琀椀oner/tenant submits that the mesne pro昀椀ts as 昀椀xed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar are on the higher side. The pe琀椀琀椀oner is unable to pay the same. The said order has been passed without considering the relevant material. The mesne pro昀椀ts have been assessed on the basis of Rent Agreement of another rented accommoda琀椀on, which is of the bigger size; and without determining the condi琀椀on of demised shop which is an old one and situated in deserted area and not opening in the main market. It is accordingly
CR-793-2025 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 prayed that the present revision pe琀椀琀椀on be allowed; and impugned order be set aside.
3.
No other argument is raised on behalf of the pe琀椀琀椀oner. 4.
I have heard learned counsel for the pe琀椀琀椀oner and perused the case 昀椀le in great detail.
5.
Perusal of the record of the case shows that the pe琀椀琀椀oner had entered the demised shop as a tenant in the year 2001. On on 13.12.2016, the respondent/landlord had 昀椀led a pe琀椀琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric琀椀on Act, 1949 seeking ejec琀椀on of the pe琀椀琀椀oner from the demised premises, on various grounds including non-payment of rent since 01.08.2012; bona昀椀de requirement of the demised shop by the son of the respondent/landlord. Vide order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), the pe琀椀琀椀oner was directed to be ejected from the demised premises and it was directed that the pe琀椀琀椀oner handover the vacant possession of the shop/property in dispute within a period of 3 from the date of judgment to the respondent/landlord.
The said order was challenged by the pe琀椀琀椀oner before the learned Appellate Authority/District Judge, Jalandhar. An applica琀椀on dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) was 昀椀led by the respondent/landlord for determina琀椀on of mesne pro昀椀ts @ Rs.15,000/- p.m. Reply thereto was 昀椀led by the pe琀椀琀椀oner. A昀琀er considera琀椀on of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024 has directed payment of Rs.
CR-793-2025 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 p.m. as mesne pro昀椀ts to be paid by the pe琀椀琀椀oner 琀椀ll the disposal of the appeal.
6.
Perusal of the 昀椀le shows that in direc琀椀ng the above, the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar has taken into account the fact that the demised premises is measuring 8' x 16'; whereas the Rent Agreement produced by the landlord to show that the market rate is Rs.15,000/-p.m. pertains to a shop measuring 10' x 18'. As such, as the demised premises was slightly smaller than the relied-upon rent agreement, the learned Appellate Authority had determined the mesne pro昀椀ts as ₹10,000/- per month. I 昀椀nd no error in the same. From the record, it does not appear that any Rent Agreement to the contrary was produced by the pe琀椀琀椀oner before the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. It was also not disputed by the pe琀椀琀椀oner before the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar that the demised shop was taken on rent by the pe琀椀琀椀oner in the year 2001. 7.
As such, it is my considered view that just and fair mesne pro昀椀ts have been assessed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, which calls no interference by this Court.
8.
The present civil revision pe琀椀琀椀on is accordingly dismissed. 9.
Pending applica琀椀on, if any, stands disposed of. 06.02.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No