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