CR-3920-2026 (O&M) 151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Parkash Chand Gurmeet Kaur CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-10747-CII- This is an application for preponing the actual date of hearing in the main case. For reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken on Board today itself. CR-3920-2026 (O&M) 1. Present revision petition been filed by the petitioner/tenant laying challenge to order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby petitioner has been directed to pay mesne profits @ pm. 2. On th passed by this Court: 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Date of Decision : 19.05.2026 VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate for the respondent. -.- NIDHI GUPTA, J. -2026 This is an application for preponing the actual date of hearing in the For reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken on Board 2026 (O&M) Present revision petition been filed by the petitioner/tenant laying challenge to order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby petitioner has been directed to pay mesne profits @ On the last date of hearing i.e. 08.0 passed by this Court: - -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3920-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate for the respondent. This is an application for preponing the actual date of hearing in the For reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken on Board Present revision petition been filed by the petitioner/tenant laying challenge to order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby petitioner has been directed to pay mesne profits @ ₹6000/ e last date of hearing i.e. 08.05.2026, the following order was This is an application for preponing the actual date of hearing in the For reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken on Board Present revision petition been filed by the petitioner/tenant laying challenge to order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, ₹6000/– .2026, the following order was TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3920-2026 (O&M) petitioner/tenant laying challenge to the order dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P whereby 02 applications i.e. one filed by the petitioner/tenant for stay of the operation of impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premi payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits; and second application filed by the respondent been disposed of while assessing mesne profits @6000/ time, the present matter is adjourned to 23.07.2026 on the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that by the next date of hearing the petitioner demand dra admitted to be due since 20.08.2015 3. In compliance of the above said last order, the petitioner has handed over a demand draft dated 13.05.2026, photocopy of which is on record as Annexure A-1, fo to the entire arrears of rent due since 20.08.2015, to the learned counsel for the respondent; who duly accepts the same and undertakes to hand over the same to the respondent. 4. As regard that learned Appellate Authority has assessed mesne profits at the rate of month on the basis of Rent Deed Annexure P erred in relying upon the said mesne profits firstly, because the said Rent Deed is unregistered. Moreover, the demised premises in the Rent Deed P 2026 (O&M) “The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant laying challenge to the order dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Appellate A whereby 02 applications i.e. one filed by the petitioner/tenant for stay of the operation of impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises, has been allowed, subject to payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits; and second application filed by the respondent-landlord for assessing the mesne profits has been disposed of while assessing mesne profits @6000/ After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner time, the present matter is adjourned to 23.07.2026 on the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that by the next date of hearing the petitioner demand draft pertaining to the entire arrears of rent which are admitted to be due since 20.08.2015 In compliance of the above said last order, the petitioner has handed over a demand draft dated 13.05.2026, photocopy of which is on record as 1, for an amount of ₹82,160/- drawn on State Bank of India pertaining to the entire arrears of rent due since 20.08.2015, to the learned counsel for the respondent; who duly accepts the same and undertakes to hand over the same to the respondent. As regards the mesne profit, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that learned Appellate Authority has assessed mesne profits at the rate of month on the basis of Rent Deed Annexure P-9. However, the Appellate Authority erred in relying upon the said Rent Deed Annexure P mesne profits firstly, because the said Rent Deed is unregistered. Moreover, the demised premises in the Rent Deed P-9 is situated at Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which -2- The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant laying challenge to the order dated 18.04.2026 8) passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby 02 applications i.e. one filed by the petitioner/tenant for stay of the operation of impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ses, has been allowed, subject to payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits; and second application landlord for assessing the mesne profits has been disposed of while assessing mesne profits @6000/- per month. rned counsel for the petitioner-tenant for some time, the present matter is adjourned to 23.07.2026 on the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that by the next date of hearing the petitioner-tenant shall bring a ft pertaining to the entire arrears of rent which are admitted to be due since 20.08.2015.” In compliance of the above said last order, the petitioner has handed over a demand draft dated 13.05.2026, photocopy of which is on record as drawn on State Bank of India pertaining to the entire arrears of rent due since 20.08.2015, to the learned counsel for the respondent; who duly accepts the same and undertakes to hand over the same to s the mesne profit, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that learned Appellate Authority has assessed mesne profits at the rate of ₹6000 per 9. However, the Appellate Authority Rent Deed Annexure P-9 while determining the mesne profits firstly, because the said Rent Deed is unregistered. Moreover, the 9 is situated at Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant laying challenge to the order dated 18.04.2026 uthority, Ludhiana whereby 02 applications i.e. one filed by the petitioner/tenant for stay of the operation of impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ses, has been allowed, subject to payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits; and second application landlord for assessing the mesne profits has per month. tenant for some time, the present matter is adjourned to 23.07.2026 on the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect tenant shall bring a ft pertaining to the entire arrears of rent which are In compliance of the above said last order, the petitioner has handed over a demand draft dated 13.05.2026, photocopy of which is on record as drawn on State Bank of India pertaining to the entire arrears of rent due since 20.08.2015, to the learned counsel for the respondent; who duly accepts the same and undertakes to hand over the same to s the mesne profit, learned counsel for the petitioner argues ₹6000 per 9. However, the Appellate Authority 9 while determining the mesne profits firstly, because the said Rent Deed is unregistered. Moreover, the 9 is situated at Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3920-2026 (O&M) is a commercial area; whereas the present demis Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Ludhiana, which is a residential area. Even further, the said property at Miller Ganj, Ludhiana is not in close proximity to the present demised premises, as it is more than two and a half kilometres aw same was not a reliable estimate for comparable rent as it is not in the vicinity of the present demised premises. In support, ld. counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in Ashoka Fruit Company and Another Vs. Chander Mohan Khanna, 2025(2), RCR (Rent) 106 appellate authority must have a factual basis and cannot be arbitrarily fixed without considering evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of comparable rentals in the determined based on evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of buildings rentals in surrounding areas, let out on rent recently and the matter remanded back to appellate authority fo mesne profits within two months.” 5. Ld. counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court in and Others Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama 2016(1) RCR (Rent) 588. 6. Ld. Rs.6000/- is arbitrary and without any evidentiary basis. The learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the respondent/landlord did not produce any reliable documentary evidence to prove prevailing market rent. Even the alle rent agreement produced was not comparable to the demised premises. The said alleged rent agreement is neither registered nor is the same of the similarly situated property in the locality. The Ld. Court itself rejected the landlord's claim of Rs. 30,000/- holding the amount as excessive, yet mechanically and illegally fixed 2026 (O&M) is a commercial area; whereas the present demis Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Ludhiana, which is a residential area. Even further, the said property at Miller Ganj, Ludhiana is not in close proximity to the present demised premises, as it is more than two and a half kilometres aw same was not a reliable estimate for comparable rent as it is not in the vicinity of the present demised premises. In support, ld. counsel relies upon judgment of this Ashoka Fruit Company and Another Vs. Chander Mohan Khanna, ), RCR (Rent) 106, wherein it is held that: “ appellate authority must have a factual basis and cannot be arbitrarily fixed without considering evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of comparable rentals in the vicinity. It is further held that mesne profits must be determined based on evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of buildings rentals in surrounding areas, let out on rent recently and the matter remanded back to appellate authority for reconsideration and re mesne profits within two months.” Ld. counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court in and Others Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama 2016(1) RCR (Rent) 588. Ld. counsel submits that therefore, assessment of is arbitrary and without any evidentiary basis. The learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the respondent/landlord did not produce any reliable documentary evidence to prove prevailing market rent. Even the alle rent agreement produced was not comparable to the demised premises. The said alleged rent agreement is neither registered nor is the same of the similarly situated property in the locality. The Ld. Court itself rejected the landlord's claim of holding the amount as excessive, yet mechanically and illegally fixed -3- is a commercial area; whereas the present demised premises is situated at Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Ludhiana, which is a residential area. Even further, the said property at Miller Ganj, Ludhiana is not in close proximity to the present demised premises, as it is more than two and a half kilometres away. Thus, the same was not a reliable estimate for comparable rent as it is not in the vicinity of the present demised premises. In support, ld. counsel relies upon judgment of this Ashoka Fruit Company and Another Vs. Chander Mohan Khanna, , wherein it is held that: “Mesne profits determined by appellate authority must have a factual basis and cannot be arbitrarily fixed without considering evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of vicinity. It is further held that mesne profits must be determined based on evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of buildings rentals in surrounding areas, let out on rent recently and the matter r reconsideration and re-assessment of Ld. counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court in Angoori Devi and Others Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama 2016(1) RCR (Rent) 588. counsel submits that therefore, assessment of mesne profits @ is arbitrary and without any evidentiary basis. The learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the respondent/landlord did not produce any reliable documentary evidence to prove prevailing market rent. Even the alleged rent agreement produced was not comparable to the demised premises. The said alleged rent agreement is neither registered nor is the same of the similarly situated property in the locality. The Ld. Court itself rejected the landlord's claim of holding the amount as excessive, yet mechanically and illegally fixed ed premises is situated at Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Ludhiana, which is a residential area. Even further, the said property at Miller Ganj, Ludhiana is not in close proximity to the present ay. Thus, the same was not a reliable estimate for comparable rent as it is not in the vicinity of the present demised premises. In support, ld. counsel relies upon judgment of this Ashoka Fruit Company and Another Vs. Chander Mohan Khanna, Mesne profits determined by appellate authority must have a factual basis and cannot be arbitrarily fixed without considering evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of vicinity. It is further held that mesne profits must be determined based on evidence such as valuation reports or reliable estimates of buildings rentals in surrounding areas, let out on rent recently and the matter assessment of Angoori Devi mesne profits @ is arbitrary and without any evidentiary basis. The learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the respondent/landlord did not produce any ged rent agreement produced was not comparable to the demised premises. The said alleged rent agreement is neither registered nor is the same of the similarly situated property in the locality. The Ld. Court itself rejected the landlord's claim of holding the amount as excessive, yet mechanically and illegally fixed TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3920-2026 (O&M) Rs.6000/- without any supporting material. Thus, the assessment is purely conjectural and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that Ld. Appellate Court ignored the contended that the admitted rent of the premises was Rs. 632/ evidence of substantial commercial development or drastic increase in rent was placed on record. The premises are situa was specifically pleaded to be much lower. Despite this, the Ld. Appellate Authority increased the rent almost ten excessive and on the higher side. Moreover, in the present case, evidence/document was ever produced by the respondent except for an unregistered rent note and that too altogether of different area i.e Ram Nagar, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which is not even admissible as per law, yet the Ld. Court below while relying upon the said inadmissible document has illegally assessed the rate of Mesne Profit as Rs. 6,000/ violates the principles as settled by the Apex Court. 7. Moreover, impugned order passed by the Appellat non-speaking order. It is also submitted that as per the established legal position mesne profit has to be deposited by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, which is to be released to the landlord/respondent only after decision in th Appeal. However, Appellate Authority has failed to include any such direction in the impugned order. 8 Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that as per the impugned order petitioner was required to deposit arrears of mesne profit withi one month i.e. by 18.05.2026. It is prayed that petitioner be permitted to deposit 2026 (O&M) without any supporting material. Thus, the assessment is purely conjectural and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that Ld. Appellate Court ignored the admitted rate of rent and surrounding circumstances. It is contended that the admitted rent of the premises was Rs. 632/ evidence of substantial commercial development or drastic increase in rent was placed on record. The premises are situated in a locality where comparable rent was specifically pleaded to be much lower. Despite this, the Ld. Appellate Authority increased the rent almost ten-fold without justification, which is excessive and on the higher side. Moreover, in the present case, evidence/document was ever produced by the respondent except for an unregistered rent note and that too altogether of different area i.e Ram Nagar, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which is not even admissible as per law, yet the Ld. Court elying upon the said inadmissible document has illegally assessed the rate of Mesne Profit as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thus, the impugned order clearly violates the principles as settled by the Apex Court. Moreover, impugned order passed by the Appellat speaking order. It is also submitted that as per the established legal position mesne profit has to be deposited by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, which is to be released to the landlord/respondent only after decision in th Appeal. However, Appellate Authority has failed to include any such direction in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that as per the impugned order petitioner was required to deposit arrears of mesne profit withi one month i.e. by 18.05.2026. It is prayed that petitioner be permitted to deposit -4- without any supporting material. Thus, the assessment is purely conjectural and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that Ld. Appellate admitted rate of rent and surrounding circumstances. It is contended that the admitted rent of the premises was Rs. 632/- per month. No evidence of substantial commercial development or drastic increase in rent was ted in a locality where comparable rent was specifically pleaded to be much lower. Despite this, the Ld. Appellate fold without justification, which is excessive and on the higher side. Moreover, in the present case, no reliable evidence/document was ever produced by the respondent except for an unregistered rent note and that too altogether of different area i.e Ram Nagar, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which is not even admissible as per law, yet the Ld. Court elying upon the said inadmissible document has illegally assessed the per month. Thus, the impugned order clearly violates the principles as settled by the Apex Court. Moreover, impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is a speaking order. It is also submitted that as per the established legal position mesne profit has to be deposited by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, which is to be released to the landlord/respondent only after decision in the Rent Appeal. However, Appellate Authority has failed to include any such direction in Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that as per the impugned order petitioner was required to deposit arrears of mesne profit withi one month i.e. by 18.05.2026. It is prayed that petitioner be permitted to deposit without any supporting material. Thus, the assessment is purely conjectural and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that Ld. Appellate admitted rate of rent and surrounding circumstances. It is per month. No evidence of substantial commercial development or drastic increase in rent was ted in a locality where comparable rent was specifically pleaded to be much lower. Despite this, the Ld. Appellate fold without justification, which is no reliable evidence/document was ever produced by the respondent except for an unregistered rent note and that too altogether of different area i.e Ram Nagar, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which is not even admissible as per law, yet the Ld. Court elying upon the said inadmissible document has illegally assessed the per month. Thus, the impugned order clearly e Authority is a speaking order. It is also submitted that as per the established legal position mesne profit has to be deposited by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, e Rent Appeal. However, Appellate Authority has failed to include any such direction in Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that as per the impugned order petitioner was required to deposit arrears of mesne profit within one month i.e. by 18.05.2026. It is prayed that petitioner be permitted to deposit TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3920-2026 (O&M) mesne profits by the next date of hearing, which is 27.08.2026; as the same has been delayed due to the pendency of the present Revision Petition. 9. Per contra, of the petitioner by contending that the impugned order has been passed after taking into account all the relevant factors. It is submitted that in actual fact, the learned Appellate Authority has assessed me per month as rent of similarly situated properties as the present demised premises is at least @ ₹10,000/ prominent area in Ludhiana. Thus, being a prime loca rent @ ₹30000/ profits to the tune of accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 10. No have heard learning counsel for the parties and perused the whole record minutely. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. 11. The learned coun passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2026, the learned Appellate Authority has relied upon the unregistered Rent Deed Annexure P situated in commercial area of Miller Gan least 2.5 kilometres from the present demised premises; which is situated in prime residential area of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. |Thus, in terms of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the p could not have formed a reliable estimate of comparable rentals in the vicinity. 12. However, in view of the above facts, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, it is directed that the peti 2026 (O&M) mesne profits by the next date of hearing, which is 27.08.2026; as the same has been delayed due to the pendency of the present Revision Petition. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes submissions of the petitioner by contending that the impugned order has been passed after taking into account all the relevant factors. It is submitted that in actual fact, the learned Appellate Authority has assessed mesne profit on the lower side @ per month as rent of similarly situated properties as the present demised premises ₹10,000/- per month. Moreover, the demised premises is located in a prominent area in Ludhiana. Thus, being a prime loca ₹30000/- per month, and accordingly, respondent is entitled to mesne profits to the tune of ₹30,000/- per month, with effect from 01.09.2015. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed. No other argument is raised on behalf learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learning counsel for the parties and perused the whole record minutely. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to deny that while passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2026, the learned Appellate Authority has relied upon the unregistered Rent Deed Annexure P situated in commercial area of Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, which is at a distance of at least 2.5 kilometres from the present demised premises; which is situated in prime residential area of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. |Thus, in terms of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the p could not have formed a reliable estimate of comparable rentals in the vicinity. However, in view of the above facts, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, it is directed that the peti -5- mesne profits by the next date of hearing, which is 27.08.2026; as the same has been delayed due to the pendency of the present Revision Petition. counsel for the respondent opposes submissions of the petitioner by contending that the impugned order has been passed after taking into account all the relevant factors. It is submitted that in actual fact, the sne profit on the lower side @ ₹6000/ per month as rent of similarly situated properties as the present demised premises per month. Moreover, the demised premises is located in a prominent area in Ludhiana. Thus, being a prime location it could, in fact, fetch per month, and accordingly, respondent is entitled to mesne per month, with effect from 01.09.2015. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed. other argument is raised on behalf learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learning counsel for the parties and perused the whole record minutely. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. sel for the respondent is unable to deny that while passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2026, the learned Appellate Authority has relied upon the unregistered Rent Deed Annexure P-9; which pertains to a property j, Ludhiana, which is at a distance of at least 2.5 kilometres from the present demised premises; which is situated in prime residential area of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. |Thus, in terms of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Rent Deed could not have formed a reliable estimate of comparable rentals in the vicinity. However, in view of the above facts, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay mesne profits by the next date of hearing, which is 27.08.2026; as the same has counsel for the respondent opposes submissions of the petitioner by contending that the impugned order has been passed after taking into account all the relevant factors. It is submitted that in actual fact, the ₹6000/- per month as rent of similarly situated properties as the present demised premises per month. Moreover, the demised premises is located in a tion it could, in fact, fetch per month, and accordingly, respondent is entitled to mesne per month, with effect from 01.09.2015. It is other argument is raised on behalf learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learning counsel for the parties and perused the whole record minutely. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. sel for the respondent is unable to deny that while passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2026, the learned Appellate Authority has 9; which pertains to a property j, Ludhiana, which is at a distance of at least 2.5 kilometres from the present demised premises; which is situated in prime residential area of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. |Thus, in terms of the etitioner, the said Rent Deed However, in view of the above facts, and after hearing learned counsel tioner shall pay TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3920-2026 (O&M) mesne profits @ the said mesne profits by the seventh day of every month before the Rent Controller concerned. Moreover, direction of the learned Appellate Authority to the petitioner to deposit arrears of mesne profits by 18.5.2026, is modified; and it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit all arrears of the mesne profit payable to the respondent at the rate of positively on or before 20.06.2026. 13. The present revision petition, accordingly, stands, the above-said terms. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. May 19, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) mesne profits @ ₹5000/– per month to the respondent. The petitioner shall deposit the said mesne profits by the seventh day of every month before the Rent Controller concerned. Moreover, direction of the learned Appellate Authority to petitioner to deposit arrears of mesne profits by 18.5.2026, is modified; and it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit all arrears of the mesne profit payable to the respondent at the rate of ₹5000/- per month within one month from today i.e. ively on or before 20.06.2026. The present revision petition, accordingly, stands, said terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- per month to the respondent. The petitioner shall deposit the said mesne profits by the seventh day of every month before the Rent Controller concerned. Moreover, direction of the learned Appellate Authority to petitioner to deposit arrears of mesne profits by 18.5.2026, is modified; and it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit all arrears of the mesne profit payable to per month within one month from today i.e. The present revision petition, accordingly, stands, partly allowed Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No per month to the respondent. The petitioner shall deposit the said mesne profits by the seventh day of every month before the Rent Controller concerned. Moreover, direction of the learned Appellate Authority to petitioner to deposit arrears of mesne profits by 18.5.2026, is modified; and it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit all arrears of the mesne profit payable to per month within one month from today i.e. partly allowed in TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document