Asha Rani Rajesh Rajput jput & Another v. Date of decision
Case Details
IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) 126 Asha Rani Rajesh Rajput jput & Another Vs. Date of decision: 11.02.2025 CR-6282-2024 (O&M) ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- cate Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Petitioner/tenant has filed filed the present petition under Article 227 of 7 of the Constitution of India seekin eking setting aside of impugned order dated ed 16.11.2023 (Annexure P10) pa ) passed by learned Appellate Authority, Hos Hoshiarpur as illegal, ultra vires, v es, void and without jurisdiction and further th er that the application (Annexure ure P8) filed by the respondent No.1 for asses ssessment of mesne profits/damag mages for use and occupation of the house in d in dispute, be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the the petitioner/tenant inter alia submits that t
Decision
at the impugned order is unsustain stainable on account of the fact that admitted ittedly vide order dated 10.08.201 .2016 (Annexure P-5), the Rent Controller had had assessed the rent of the dem demised premises at the rate of Rs.100/- per m er month keeping in mind the fact fact that the demised premises are in a very d ry dilapidated condition. It is conten ntended that as per judgment of the Hon’ble Su le Supreme Court in “Mohammad ad Ahmad & Another Vs. Atma SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) Ram Chauhan han & Others” Law Finder doc ID c ID # 253506, rent could have been increase eased thereafter, only at the rate rate of 10%. Whereas, in the present case ase vide the impugned orderthe s he same has been assessed as ₹5000/– per m er month that is, the rent has be s been increased by 500%. It is accordingly pr ly prayed that the impugned order is er is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside side. 3. 4. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 5. Perusal of record of the ca e case shows thatthe petitioner was inducted ted as a tenant in the demised pre premises on 14.05.2014 at the mutually agre agreed rate of rent of Rs.4,000/- per month. As the petitioner had failed to p to pay rent, the landlord/responden ndent No.1 herein had moved an application da n dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure P1) u P1) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent R nt Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectme tment of the petitioner from the house/demise mised premises on the grounds o ds of arrears of rent, personal necessity, and and the dilapidated condition of of demised premises. It was the case of the r he respondent/landlord that rent ent was payable at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per per month. However, during pende endency of the said proceedings at the time of e of determining the provisional ren l rent, the petitioner had placed on record ren rent receipts as per which the ra e rate of rent is mentioned as Rs.100/- per er month. As such, the Rent Con Controller had determined the arrears of ren rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per m er month from 14.09.2014 (the SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) date from wh which petitioner had failed to pay pay rent) to 13.10.2015 (till the filing of the p e petition). As such, it is very mis misleading for the petitioner to submit that th at the rent was determined by the R he Rent Controller to be Rs.100/- per month. 5(i) Thereafter vide order date dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P6), the rent appli pplication of the respondent was was allowed with costs and the petitioner wa was directed to hand over vacant cant physical possession of the entire premise mises in dispute to the respondent/ ent/landlord within two months from the date date of passing of order. The said o aid order was challenged by the petitioner befo before the learned Appellate Autho uthority by way of Appeal dated 14.11.2022 (A 2 (Annexure P7). In the said proce roceeding, the respondent filed application da n dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P8 P8) for assessment of mesne profit/damage ages for use and occupation of the f the house in dispute at the rate of Rs.15,000/ 00/- per month as per market/area area rate till the decision of the appeal. It is in is in the said application of the re e respondent/landlord that the learned Appel ppellate Authority vide impugned ed order dated 16.11.2023 has assessed the the mesne profits at the rate of of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is pertinent to n to note the direction given in the im e impugned order as follows:- “As such, tenant/ appellant is dire Rs.5000/- per month to the petit from the date of judgment and d fro the handing over the vacant premises. Thus, the application disposed of accordingly. At the same time as tenant/appe mesne profits till the handing ov the demised premises, so no prej directed to pay mesne profits @ petitioner/ respondent/ landlord and decree dated 19.10.2022 till ant possession of the demised tion for mesne profits stands /appellant is directed to pay the g over the vacant possession of prejudice is going to be caused SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) to the landlord if the operation o stayed. Accordingly, the operatio stayed.” ion of impugned eviction order is ration of the impugned order is Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) 6. The said order has been c en challenged by the petitioner before this Co s Court by way of the present petitio etition filed on 24.10.2024. From the above fact facts, it would appear that the pet petitioner has enjoyed the stay granted by th y the learned Appellate Authority rity without payment of mesne profits for ove over one year till date. 7. Be that as it may, the sole sole contention of the petitioner is that as per per judgment of the Hon’ble Sup Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmad (supra upra) mesne profit could not have ave been enhanced beyond the rate of 10%. T %. The said argument is utterly mis misleading as it is clearly stated in the said jud judgment that “...The tenant must ust enhance the rent according to the terms of s of the agreement or at least by te by ten percent, after every three years...”. Thus hus, I find no infirmity in the impug pugned order. The argument of the petitioner ner is based on a misreading of the the above judgement. 8. 9. 11.02.2025 Sunena The present petition is acco accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)