Sinder Pal @ Surinder Kumar and another vs Sat Pal and another

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This judgment shall dispose of two civil revision petitions i.e. CR No. 4537 of 2011 titled as ""Sinder Pal @

Surinder Kumar and another v. Sat Pal and another and CR No. 6588 of 2011 titled as ""Sat Pal and another v. Sinder Pal @ Surinder Kumar and

another"" as both the revision petitions have been directed against the order dated 17.2.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur whereby mesne

profits for the demised premises have been assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of order of eviction of the Rent Controller, during the

pendency of appeal filed by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 12.11.2010 of the Rent Controller, Sunam.

CR No. 4537 of 2011 has been filed by the tenant challenging the impugned order dated 17.2.2011 on the ground that the amount of mesne

profits @ Rs. 4,000/- per month is excessive and the same has been determined without there being any evidence to support the said rate whereas

CR No. 6388 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of the landlord challenging the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that while

assessing the mesne profits @ Rs. 4,000/- per month, the Appellate Authority has ignored the relevant material for determination of the mesne

profits and on the basis of the evidence/material, the mesne profits for the demised premises should have been assessed at Rs. 17,250/-P.M.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that except the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, no other material/document has been

produced before the Court, on the basis of which the market rent in the vicinity of the demised premises could have been ascertained. In his

affidavit, the tenant has asserted that the market rent in the area cannot be more than Rs. 2500/- per month. To support this assertion, the tenant in

his affidavit has referred to certain rate of rents being paid by other shopkeepers. However, no documentary evidence has been placed before this

Court. Similarly, the assertion of the landlord that market rent in the vicinity of the demised shop @ Rs. 17,250/- P.M is also without any basis, as

the rent as claimed by him on the basis that some Bank has taken a building nearby at the aforesaid rate is not acceptable because the rate of rent

allegedly given by the Bank cannot be made the basis as in the case of an individual as admittedly, the landlord of the said building has constructed

the bank building as per the specifications required by the said Bank.

It may also be noticed at this stage that the Rent Controller, has determined the rate of rent of the demised premises at Rs. 1500/- per month in

the year 1995 and keeping in view the fact that for the last 16 years, there is a considerable rise in the price index, the mesne profits @ Rs. 4,000/-

per month seems to be proper and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is called for by this Court.

Thus, both the revision petitions are dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal pending between the parties as

expeditiously as possible preferably within three months.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.