Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babli And Ors vs Ruchi Bansal And Ors on 6 April, 2016
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.R. No. 3430 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
212/A
C.M. Nos. 14742-43-CII of 2012 &
C.R. No. 3430 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: April 06, 2016
Smt. Babli and others
...PETITIONERS
Versus
Kumari Ruchi Bansal and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No. 14742-CII of 2012 C.M. is allowed subject to just exceptions. Copies of Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record and filing the certified copies of the same is dispensed with.
C.R. No. 3430 of 2012
Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, whereby the mesne profit has been assessed @ ` 15,000/- per month for the demised premises.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners- tenants that the Appellate Authority has merely fixed the mesne profits @ ` 15,000/- per month without there being any evidence or pleadings to this effect which would relate to the premises of similar nature situated in the same area. He contends that vide the interim order dated 30.05.2012, this Court, while issuing notice of motion, had stayed the recovery of mesne 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2016 00:24:33 ::: C.R. No. 3430 of 2012 2 profits more than @ ` 10,000/- per month. He contends that the said amount is regularly being paid to the respondents-landlord, which fact is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. He contends that the impugned order, thus, cannot sustain.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the premises of similar nature and in the same locality would fetch more than ` 15,000/- per month and the Appellate Authority has already assessed the mesne profits at a lower rate which do not call for any interference by this Court.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the impugned order.
The assertion, as made by the counsel for the petitioners, is found to be correct and, therefore, the amount of mesne profits, as assessed @ ` 15,000/- per month, cannot sustain. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners had been depositing the mesne profits @ ` 10,000/- per month, the said amount, if already not deposited/paid by the petitioners before the Rent Controller/landlord, be now so deposited/paid to the landlord within a period of three weeks.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. C.M. No. 14743-CII of 2012 In view of the disposal of the main petition, no separate orders are required to be passed in this application for stay and, therefore, the same stands dismissed.
April 06, 2016 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
pj JUDGE
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2016 00:24:34 :::