[2025:RJ-JP:5464] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17453/2024 1. K.M. Electronics, A Business Undertaking, Through Its Owner/ Partner/ Manager/ Or Karta, Kundan Sindhi S/o Shri Kishan Chand Sindhi, Aged About 52 Years, Thikana In Front Of Mangal Market, Pali Bazar (Shraddhanand Bazar), Beawar, District Ajmer. 2. Kundan Sindhi S/o Shri Kishan Chand Sindhi, Aged About 52 Years, Self And Owner/ Partner/ Manager/ Or Karta, M/s K.M. Electronics, Thikana In Front Of Mangal Market, Pali Bazar (Shraddhanand Bazar), Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus Narayan Das S/o Late Shri Ram Niwas Garg, Aged About 69 Years, Thikana Daulat Ram Pole, Near Old Vegetable Gali, Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 07/02/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in Appeal No. 34/2024 whereby, while allowing the application filed by the petitioners/appellants/tenants(appellants) and staying the execution of the final order dated 12.01.2024 till disposal of the appeal, they have been required to pay mesne profit @ Rs.28,000/- per month. [2025:RJ-JP:5464] (2 of 4) [CW-17453/2024] The relevant facts in brief are that an application filed by the respondent/landlord(respondent) under Sections 9 and 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Beawar District Ajmer vide its final order dated 12.01.2024. In the appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellants, vide order impugned dated 27.09.2024, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, while staying the execution of the final order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, directed them to pay the mesne profit @ Rs.28,000/- per month till disposal of the appeal. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in misreading the valuation report submitted by them which reflected the rental value of the subject property, as per DLC rate, @ Rs.9,900/- per month. We further submit that the shop was constructed way back in the year 1961. Relying upon a judgment of this Court dated 11.08.2020 passed in the case of Vasudev Mangal Vs. Anar Devi: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3493/2020 and other connected matters, he submits that it was held therein that the rent of the property assessed at DLC rate is the correct rental value. He also relies upon another judgment of this Court dated 16.10.2024 passed in the case of Shri Lakshmandas Vs. Ramkaran: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11534/2024 wherein, the mesne profit of an adjacent shop was assessed @ Rs.11,000/- per month. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 27.09.2024 be quashed and set aside and mesne profit of the subject premises be fixed @ Rs.9,900/- per month. [2025:RJ-JP:5464] (3 of 4) [CW-17453/2024] Heard. Considered. Indisputedly, the appellants suffer a recovery certificate against them under the provisions of the Act of 2001. It is trite law that after having the decree of eviction against him, a tenant is liable to pay rent at the market rate and not at the agreed rate in case, in the appeal preferred by him, the order of eviction is stayed. This legal position is not disputed even by the learned counsel for the appellants. As per the rental valuation report dated 20.04.2024 submitted by the appellants themselves before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, the subject property is able to fetch market rent @ Rs.26,200/-. Obviously, the rental valuation report submitted by the appellants takes care of the age of the construction. Since, in the valuation report submitted by the appellants themselves, the market rent of subject property has been assessed @ Rs.26,200/-, it is not permissible for them to resile from it. In addition to relying upon the valuation report submitted by the appellants, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the rent of another shop situated in the vicinity is Rs.28,000/- per month. This factual finding has not been assailed by the learned counsel during the course of his submissions. In view thereof, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court dated 11.08.2020 in the [2025:RJ-JP:5464] (4 of 4) [CW-17453/2024] case of Vasudev Mangal (supra) is misplaced and misconceived. Therein, the market rent assessed by the valuer was not accepted inasmuch as it was done treating the property to be commercial in nature whereas, it was found that the premises were residential and were being used for this purpose only. Further, in the case of Shri Lakshmandas (supra), the writ petition filed by the tenant was disposed of by this Court while granting him a reasonable time to vacate the rented premises with mesne profit assessed at Rs.11,000/- per month as agreed by both the parties. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held to be laying down any binding law to assail the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence on record. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds the writ petition to be wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the appellants with the Litigants Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J MAHIMA/28