Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd. Ramzan vs Mohd. Haleem Thr Lrs on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099277
CR-3221-2024 (O&M) & other connected case
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3221-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.08.2024
Mohd. Haleem (Since Deceased) through LRs ... Petitioner
VS.
Mohd. Ramzan and others ... Respondents
CR-3963-2024 (O&M)
Mohd. Ramzan ... Petitioner
VS.
Mohd. Haleem (Since Deceased) through LRs ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR-3221-2024 and
for the respondent in CR-3963-2024.
Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR-3963-2024 and
for respondent No.1 in CR-3221-2024.
*****
RITU TAGORE, J.
1. These revisions have been directed against the order dated 30.03.2024,
passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur, vide which mesne profits qua the
demised premises, a shop measuring 13.62 sq. yards, as detailed in the order
(Annexure P-1), has been assessed as Rs.10,000/- from the date of ejectment.
2. Dissatisfied with the order dated 30.03.2024, both the landlord (Mohd.
Ramzan) and tenant (Mohd. Haleem through his LRs), filed the above captioned peti-
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099277
CR-3221-2024 (O&M) & other connected case
tions. Learned Counsel for the parties, have agreed and consented to dispose of these
revisions petitions together. Accordingly, these petitions are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the LRs of the tenant Mohd. Haleem urges that
learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur, erroneously assessed the mesne profits at an ex-
orbitant rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Au-
thority, while assessing the mesne profits failed to consider that demised shop mea-
sures only 13.62 sq. yards and one of the grounds for eviction was its unfit and unsafe
condition for human habitation, as evidenced by the photographs (Annexure P-7)
showing the dilapidated condition of the shop. Furthermore, learned counsel states
that learned Appellate Authority, disregarded the comparative rent deeds/agreements
(Annexure P-6) submitted on record, which indicate that the prevailing rent in the
same locality for similar shops ranges between Rs.600/- per month to Rs 2200/- per
month. Learned counsel for the tenant further contends that the agreed rate of rent of
the demised shop was Rs.350/- per month and average increase in the rent should not
exceed Rs 2200/- per month. It is submitted that determination of mesne profits by
learned Appellate Authority, is based on surmises and conjectures, ignoring the evi-
dence on record. It is urged that impugned order should be modified.
4. Learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, urges that assess-
ment of mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month is on the minimal side not akin to the
market rate, prevalent in the area, which is not less than Rs.20,000/- per month. The
petitioner places on record the rent deed dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure P-6 in CR-3963-
2024) indicating rent of the shop measuring 12.1/2 X 25 sq. feet at Rs.22,000/- per
month. A prayer is made to enhance the mesne profits.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099277
CR-3221-2024 (O&M) & other connected case
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and had gone through the
paper book and documents placed on record.
6. It is a matter of record that landlord (Mohd. Ramzan), filed an eject-
ment petition against the tenant (Mohd. Haleem) regarding the demised shop measur-
ing 13.62 sq. yards, on grounds of personal bona-fide necessity and unfit and unsafe
for human habitation. The said petition has been allowed vide order dated 15.11.2023
(Annexure P-1) and an ejectment order has been passed.
7. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, tenant filed the appeal, and a
stay application. The landlord also filed an application for mesne profits, that was al-
lowed by the impugned order. Perusal of the order indicate that landlord relied on the
rent notes dated 17.11.2018 and 15.12.2023, which shows the rental rates of the
premises in the locality ranges between Rs.20,000/- and Rs.14,000/- per month. On
the other hand, the tenant produced a copy of the rent deed dated 18.06.1992 indicat-
ing a rent of Rs.600/- per month and photocopy of a rent note dated 16.12.2021 show-
ing a rent of Rs.2200/- per month for shop 12 X 17 feet as well as another rent note
dated 05.11.2011 with a rent of Rs.2500/- per month. The learned Appellate Author-
ity, considering the rent deeds and assessed the rent on an average basis and deter-
mined the mesne profits to be Rs.10,000/- per month.
8. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. At the time of
filing of the petition, the agreed rate of rent was Rs.350/- per month. It is well settled
that a tenant is liable to pay mesne profits to the landlord if the operation of the eject-
ment order is stayed by the learned Appellate Authority, and said amount is subject to
adjustment upon the final decision. In Angoori Devi and others Vs. Smt. Satya
Bhama, 2016 (5) RCR (Civil) 1043, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that con-
tractual rent comes to an end when eviction order is passed. Admittedly, the ejectment
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099277
CR-3221-2024 (O&M) & other connected case
order has been passed, and one of the grounds for order is the unfit and unsafe condi-
tion of the demised premises for human habitation. Photographs of the shop also show
that the roof of the demised premises has fallen. In this circumstance, rent deeds relied
upon by the parties are of no help and relevance to gauge the prevalent rate of rent in
the area where the demised shop is located.
9. The basis of determination of amount of mesne profit depends on the facts
and circumstance of each case, such as where the property is situated i.e., village or
city or metropolitan place, nature/condition of premises, old or new building, facilities
provided therein, commercial or residential and rate of rent precedents on which
premises can be let out, are few guiding factors in the facts of individual case.
10. No doubt the rate of inflation also invites attention when assessing the
mesne profits. However, the Court should balance the competing claims between the
mesne profits at market rate and reasonable compensation for landlord. So, mesne
profits are required to be assessed in such a manner that tenant can pay the same and
is able to exercise his right of appeal otherwise if mesne profits are assessed arbitrarily
at an exorbitant rate, then tenant may not be able to exercise his statutory right of ap-
peal. Therefore, the assessment of mesne profits should be reasonable.
11. Considering the condition and area of the demised shop in question, it
does not seem reasonable for it to fetch such an exorbitant rent as claimed by landlord.
In these circumstances to the mind of this Court that, determination of mesne profit @
Rs.10,000/- per month is on the higher side. Considering all the facts of the case, such
as size, condition of the shop, the area and locality and city (Malerkotla) and commer-
cial nature of the shop; making some estimation of the market rental value of the
shops in the vicinity, by taking some clue from the rent deeds provided to by the par-
ties, (though these may not be relevant, insofar as present condition of shop is con-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099277
CR-3221-2024 (O&M) & other connected case
cerned), this Court finds that an assessment of Rs 8500/- per month as mesne profits
for the shop in dispute, will reasonably compensate the landlord and would not unduly
burden the tenant as well. Accordingly, the order of learned Appellate Authority to the
extent of mesne profit is modified and same is assessed Rs.8,500/- per month. Conse-
quently, there is no basis to enhance the mesne profits as requested for by the land-
lord. Other conditions and directions given by the learned Appellate Authority remain
unaltered.
12. For the reasons given and discussion made herein above, CR-3963-2024
filed by landlord is dismissed and CR-3221-2024 filed by tenant is allowed in above
terms.
13. It may be noted herein that the above-said discussion may not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The present discussion is purely
for the deliberations made in the matter.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
15. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file.
01.08.2024 (RITU TAGORE)
smriti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
