Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Lal Goyal vs Phool Chand Bansal And Others on 29 August, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3840 of 2012
Date of Decision: 29.08.2012
Sham Lal Goyal ...Petitioner
Versus
Phool Chand Bansal and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
AJAY TEWARI J.(Oral)
Through the instant petition, the petitioner prays for enhancement of the mesne profits of the demised premises from ` 40,000/- to ` 90,000/- per month and also to modify the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide which the mesne profits of the demised premises has been fixed at ` 40,000/- per month.
Vide order dated 08.04.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the respondents have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. It is pertinent to mention here that the demised premises was taken on rent by the respondents from the petitioner-landlord in the year 2002 and at that time the rent of the demised premises was fixed at ` 20,000/- per month with 5% increase in the monthly rent from 01.04.2003 to 31.02.2004 and thereafter increase in monthly rent @ 7% from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 and so on.
Civil Revision No. 3836 of 2012 [2]
Order dated 08.04.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh has been challenged by the respondents before the learned Appellate Authority and the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 17.11.2011 fixed the mesne-profits of the demised premises @ ` 40,000/- per month.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority while fixing the mesne profits of the demised premises had considered all the relevant factors which were relevant for fixation of mesne profits as mentioned in para No.12 of the impugned order and therefore, the consideration which has weighed by the learned Appellate Authority cannot be said to be irrelevant or arbitrary. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(AJAY TEWARI) 29.08.2012 JUDGE 'ravinder'