1) Suman @ Sha Shammi Kumar Verma (deceased) t ed) through LRs Manoj Kumar v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CR-7138-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Page 1 of 5 5 (cid:1) Suman @ Sha Shammi Kumar Verma (deceased) t ed) through LRs Manoj Kumar mar & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) Present:- cate Ms. Mona Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Challenge in the present p nt petition is to the order dated 30.04.2024 (A 4 (Annexure P1) passed by the learn earned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whe whereby the application filed by t by the respondent/landlord for assessment o t of mesne profit, has been allow allowed; and the petitioner has been directed ted to pay mesne profit at the rate rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. 2. Learned counsel for the p he petitioner inter alia submits that the petiti etitioner is a poor person and does oes not have the capacity to pay the excessive sive mesne profits as directed vid vide the impugned order. It is pointed out th ut that the demised premises is very very small in size, situate only on the ground flo d floor portion which is part of 50 f 50 years old building which is situated at na t narrow railway road. The Shop in p in question is part of a bigger building belon elonging to the respondent/landlor dlord which comprises of about 3 floors out of ut of which rear portion of ground f
Legal Reasoning
nd floor, entire first floor, entire second floor a or are in possession of the landlord lord himself, who is conducting / running their heir own business of Hotels name amely Manoj Hotel, Hotel Bansi SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Dhar, Hotel P el Paras etc. The demised premise mises in question has its small entrance tow towards railway road with narrow rrow rear portion. The shop in Page 2 of 5 5 (cid:1) question on a on a narrow-congested railway roa road. It is contended that thus, the said amo amount of Rs.20,000/- per month onth is excessive, inflated and exorbitant. It It is reiterated that the demise mised premises is only a small ground floor s or shop in which the petitioner is ru is running a small business. 3. It is also contended that th at the rent of the shops situated in the same st e street/locality is in the range of of Rs.4-5 thousand per month. The petitioner oner had even produced rent rece eceipts issued by the Municipal Corporation o n of similar shops with 10 feet v et verandah. However, the said evidence has has been overlooked by the learn arned Additional District Judge while passing sing the impugned order. Thus, s, the assessed mesne profit is much more th re than the ongoing market value/ lue/prevailing rent of adjoining shops of sim similar size, age of building, si , situation of premises. It is accordingly pr ly prayed that the present petition ition be allowed and the mesne profits assesse essed vide the impugned order date dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P1) by the learned rned Appellate Authority, Bathinda b da be modified and reduced. 4. It is repeatedly reiterated ted that the petitioner is a poor person runnin nning a very small shop, and is, th is, therefore, unable to pay the assessed mesn esne profit. 5. 6. No other argument is raise aised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 7. Brief facts of the case a se are that originally father of Page 3 of 5 5 (cid:1) respondent N t No.1 was the owner in possessio ession of the demised premises (describable a le as shop/property bearing Mun Municipal No.4855, situated on Railway Statio tation, Bathinda as shown in red red colour in site plan having boundaries at s at present as under:- East: Ten Tenant Harish Chander/street; West: Railway lway Road; North: Yash Vaishnu Dh u Dhaba; South: Pappu Vaishnu Dhaba);and he d he had rented out the same to to the father of the petitioner more than 40 40 years ago for a sum of Rs.850 .850/- per month. Father of the respondent no t no.1 died in 2001 and thereafter r ter respondent No.1 became the owner; and so d sought eviction of the petitione ioner from the said property by way of evictio iction application under Section 1 n 13 of the East Urban Punjab Rent Restricti riction Act, 1949 (hereinafter refe referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 19.05.2017. Th The said petition was allowed by d by the learned Rent Controller, Bathinda vide vide order dated 09.10.2023 (Annex nnexure P3). The said order was challenged by by the petitioner before the learn earned Additional District Judge, Bathinda by w y way of RA No.23/2023, which is p is pending. 8. In the said appeal, the the respondent No.1 filed an application da n dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P4), for a or assessment of mesne profits asserting ther there in that the petitioner was in a in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.850/- per m er month from 17.05.2017; and tha d that the prevailing rate of rent for premises ses having lesser area was Rs.41,0 .41,000/- per month and other shops in the n he nearby locality were drawing re g rent at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakh per month. Re Reply thereto dated 29.02.2024 24 (Annexure P5), was duly filed SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) by the pet petitioner deny ve the above said assertions of the Page 4 of 5 5 (cid:1) respondent/la t/landlord. Vide impugned order d er dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P1), the said a id application of the respondent No t No.1 for assessment and grant of mesne prof profits has been allowed. 9. It is the contention of the f the petitioner that the mesne profits have be e been assessed on a higher rate th te than the prevailing rate of rent in the nearby rby premises. However, the said a id argument of the petitioner is contrary to th o the facts on record as it was foun ound that the demised premises are situated o ed on the Railway Station, Bathind hinda abutting the GT road and were in a hig highly active commercial area of a of the town. On the basis of evidence led led by the parties including the le e lease deeds of nearby shops presented by r by respondent No.1, the learned Ap Appellate Authority concluded that rent of of similarly situated buildings n s nearby was Rs.1.5 lakh per month.It is als is also admitted fact on record tha that the demised premises are situated on t n the Railway Road near the Ra e Railway Station which would obviously be a be a very busy and commercially ac y active area. 10. It has next been submitted itted that the petitioner has also submitted an an affidavit dated 06.03.2024 ( 24 (Annexure P12) before the learned Appe ppellate Authority, wherein he h he had voluntarily offered for enhancement ent of rent. In the said Affidavit, th , the petitioner has mentioned certain citatio
Legal Reasoning
ations. It is contended that the said said case law has not been dealt with by the he learned Appellate Authority w ty while passing the impugned order. The sai said contention of the petitioner i ner is also incorrect as a perusal SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 5 of 5 5 (cid:1) of Paras 12, 1 2, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the impug pugned order dated 30.04.2024 shows that th t the case law cited by the petition itioner has been duly considered and rejected b ed by way of cogent reasoning. 11. It is also to be noted that at vide the impugned order, the mesne profits ofits have been made payable from from the date of eviction order i.e. 09.10.2023 2023 until decision of the appeal on l on merits. 12. In view of the above, I e, I find the mesne profits as assessed vide vide the impugned order to be ju e just and fair in the facts and circumstances nces of the case. Present petition ac n accordingly stands dismissed. 13. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 10.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)