Jagdish Chander (Deceased) ... vs Shri Digamber Jain Panchayat ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14707 P&H

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114240




CR-5020 of 2023 (O&M)                    -1-          2023:PHHC:114240

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                    CR-5020 of 2023 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Order: 31.08.2023

Jagdish Chander (deceased) through his LRs

                                                                       .Petitioner
                                     Versus

Shri Digamber Jain Panchayat Mandir                               ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

C.M.No.15700-CII-2023

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is

supported by an affidavit, the delay of 12 days in filing the revision petition

is condoned.

2. CM stands disposed of.

MAIN

3. The petitioner herein is a tenant who was ordered to be evicted

by the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 12.01.2018. He filed an appeal

along with an application for grant of stay.

4. As per the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in M/s Atma

Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. , 2005 (1)

RCR(Rent) 1, the trial court while granting the interim protection to the

tenant is required to direct the tenant to pay the market rent. The Appellate

Authority while granting the interim protection has assessed the amount of

mesne profit for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.6000/- per month

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114240

CR-5020 of 2023 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:114240

on the basis of a registered lease deed of a nearby shop which was originally

let out @ Rs.5000/- per month but now the rent is Rs.7605/-.

5. The correctness of the aforesaid order has been challenged in

this revision petition.

6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that

the respondent-landlord while filing the application has asserted that the

adjoining shop has been let out for a rent of Rs.3100/- per month and the

Appellate Authority has erred in relying upon the rent of adjoining shop

wherein the ATM is being run by the Punjab National Bank.

7. This court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the petitioner.

8. On a court question, the learned counsel representing the

petitioner failed to draw the attention of the court to any material to show

that the shop in possession of the petitioner is in any way at a disadvantage

location when compared to the ATM booth. Both the shops are located in

the same market. The current rent for the booth occupied by ATM is

Rs.7605/-, whereas the Appellate Authority has permitted the petitioner to

pay Rs.6000/- per month during the pendency of the appeal.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground

to interfere is made out.

10. Dismissed.

11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

August 31, 2023                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                          JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned               :YES/NO
Whether reportable                      :YES/NO

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114240

2 of 2