[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Bhushan @ Bunty vs Minakshi Bhatia And Others on 29 April, 2026
CR-3594-2026
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119
CR-3594-2026
Date of decision: 29.04.2026
BHARAT BHUSHAN @ BUNTY ....Petitioner
Versus
MINAKSHI BHATIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate,
Mr. Sanjay Khan, Advocate and
Mr. K.V.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.04.2026
(Annexure P-1), vide which the application moved by the petitioner-tenant
seeking extension of time to deposit the mesne profits has been rejected by the
Appellate Court.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through
the material placed on the file.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide judgment
dated 26.07.2024, the Rent Controller had ordered the eviction of the present
petitioner from the demised premises and against the said judgment, he had
instituted an appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 01.05.2025 had
assessed mesne profits @ Rs.7500/- per month which were ordered to be paid with
effect from 26.07.2024 onwards within a period of 60 days. It was further ordered
that appellant-petitioner shall keep on paying the mesne profits at the same rate on
or before 10th day of every month during pendency of the appeal and in case of his
CR-3594-2026
- 2-
failure to do so, the stay shall stand vacated automatically. Learned counsel further
contended that petitioner had been approaching the landlord/respondent to accept
the mesne profits but he kept on prolonging the matter and as such, the mesne
profits could not be paid in time and the learned Appellate Court ought to have
extended the time to deposit the mesne profits particularly because the appeal is
still pending and he prayed that the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 be set aside.
4. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
5. Petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises in a
petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949,
instituted by the respondent-landlord vide order dated 26.07.2024. Against the
said order, petitioner preferred an appeal and operation of the eviction order was
stayed conditionally and the following order was passed:-
"With the observations, both the applications i.e. one filed by
appellant/tenant for staying the operation of eviction order dated
26.7.2024 and the another application filed by respondent no.1/landlord
for assessment of mesne profit stands allowed. As the disposal of the
present appeal shall take sufficient long time and in order to avoid
multiplicity of the proceedings and considering the fact that if the
operation of order dated 26.7.2024 is not stayed and the possession is
taken by respondent no.1 from the appellant during the pendency of
present appeal, then the purpose of filing the present appeal will be
frustrated, so, the proceeding before the Executing Court on the basis of
eviction order dated 26.7.2024 will remained stayed during the pendency
of present appeal, subject to the payment of arrears of mesne profit in the
Executing Court at the rate of Rs.7500/- per month by the appellant to
respondent no.1 w.e.f. 26.7.2024 till date, within 60 days from the date of
this order. He shall further keep on paying the mesne profit at the rate of
CR-3594-2026
- 3-
Rs.7500/- per month to respondent no.1 till 10th of every month during the
pendency of present appeal. However, it is made clear that if the
appellant/ tenant fails to pay the arrears of mesne profit within 60 days
and future mesne profit on or before the 10th day of any month then the
stay will stand automatically vacated."
6. Now, as per version of petitioner, he had deposited the mesne profits
up to 28.02.2025 but thereafter, landlord had not accepted the same and he kept on
prolonging the matter and a prayer was made to allow him to deposit the mesne
profits by extending the time. However, in my considered opinion, the petitioner
had been negligent and did not comply with the directions issued by the Appellate
Court. Initially, he had deposited the mesne profits in the Treasury and what
prevented him from again depositing the future mesne profits in the Treasury or in
the bank account of the landlord has not been explained. The plea that respondent-
landlord had not accepted the amount has been raised only to save his own skin
and he miserably failed to deposit the mesne profits from November 2025
onwards and thereafter, moved the application on 10.02.2026 seeking extension of
time. The learned Appellate Court has thus rightly rejected the application taking
into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and no interference in the
impugned order is called for.
7. Resultantly, petition in hand is ordered to be dismissed.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
