ALAMJIT SINGH MANN Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.02.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby mesne profits have been fixed at a sum of Rs. 3 lacs per month during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the 'Act') as extended to Chandigarh for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from basement and ground floor area, approximately measuring 3700 square feet numbering SCO No. 483-484, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. In the rent petition, it was averred that the period of lease was for 5 years from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2007 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- and the rent was to be increased by 8% compounded after every year and from 01.07.2006, it was to be @ Rs. 2,04,074/- per month. There was a dispute regarding the payment of rent on the ground that the building in question has been resumed and the basement could not be put to the use and even criminal proceedings had been initiated between the parties. The ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 28.09.2011 on the ground of non-payment of rent. Initially, provisional rent was assessed at a sum of Rs. 80,000/- per month by the Rent Controller during the pendency of the ejectment petition vide order dated 16.12.2010 and thereafter, it was held that the tenant was liable to pay the rent as per the terms of the agreement @ Rs. 2,04,074/- per month with effect from 01.07.2007. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord for assessing the mesne profits and it was pleaded that the duly registered lease deed in respect of a hotel bearing SCO No. 499-500, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh whose covered area on the ground floor and basement was 3700 square feet out of which, 3300 square feet was let out for Rs. 4,50,000/-, and therefore, the prevalent rent was Rs. 136/- per square feet and the tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,03,200/- per month. Detailed reply was filed to the application that the premises in question were under resumption and the landlord was guilty of concealment and had played a fraud and the lease deed was not applicable to the premises as that was a hotel site and used as a hotel.

(2.) The Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & another v. M/s. Super Max International Private Limited & others, 2009 2 RCR(Rent) 246, came to the conclusion that the premises in question were let out since 01.07.2002 and the period of lease was till 30.06.2007 and the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 1,20,000/- from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2007 and the agreed rate of rent from 01.07.2007 was Rs. 2,04,074/- per month. The registered lease deed dated 04.05.2011 relied upon regarding premises of SCO No. 499-500, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh was rejected since it was a hotel site and could not be made the basis for determining of market fees. The order passed by this Court in CWP No. 8220 of 2005 was also taken into consideration wherein the tenant had removed the violations in the premises in question since resumption proceedings had also been initiated. Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 3 lacs was fixed which was to be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt with a nationalized bank carrying maximum interest in favour of the landlord but the same was to be paid only after final disposal of the case to either side. The amount was to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

(3.) Resultantly, the said order has been challenged by arguing that the amount fixed is very substantial and there is a quantitative jump in the rate of rent. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner has argued that the premises have been resumed in the year 1996 and the rent note was executed on 01.07.2002 and the fact of resumption was concealed and that the premises were sealed by the Estate Officer and therefore, there has been an fraud and the tenant is not in a position to use the resumed portion since it was let out as a kitchen but cannot be used due to the restriction put on running a kitchen by the Estate Office. Mr. A.K. Jaiswal, Advocate, who has put in appearance for the respondents has, on the other hand, argued that the violation was made by the tenant himself and as per the order dated 24.07.2007 passed in CWP No. 8220 of 2005, the resumption order has been set aside and the compounding charge has been directed to be adjusted from the forfeited amount of Rs. 5,10,000/-. Accordingly, it was contended that the violation is made by the tenant and it was beyond the control of the landlord.