Dismissed

Mohan Lal Sharma v. Chander Mohan Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2011CR/7480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tenant's revision petition challenging the assessment of mesne profits was dismissed. The court found no reason to interfere as the assessment was comparable to a similar property in the same locality and the petitionist failed to provide rebuttal evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order assessing mesne profits at `15,000/- per month` up to 23.2.2011 was upheld.

Mohan Lal Sharma Vs Chander Mohan Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Civil Revision No.7480 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.12.2011

Mohan Lal Sharma

-----Petitioner

Vs.

Chander Mohan Kumar

¶7

-----Respondent

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶10

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present:Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

¶15

This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 16.11.2011, whereby the mesne profits of the demised premises have been assessed @ `15,000/- per month with effect from the date of eviction i.e. 23.2.2011.

¶16

In the instant revision petition, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is liable to pay mesne profits with effect from the date of eviction order. However, the grievance raised before this Court is that the amount of mesne profits determined by the Appellate Authority is on a higher side and in fact, the lease deed relied upon by the said authority is not comparable at all, as the same pertains to a different locality and is of a one kanal house, whereas the demised premises is a ground floor of 7½ Marla house.

¶17

C.R. No.7480 of 2011

¶18

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as other averments made in the revision petition and also the documents placed on record of this Court.

¶20

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the fact that the covered area of the demised premises is more than the covered area of second floor of house No.1547, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh (the lease deed pertaining to which has been relied upon by the Appellate Authority). It could also not be disputed before this Court that the demised premises comprises of four rooms, kitchen and toilet, whereas vide lease deed (Annexure P-3), second floor of house No.1547, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh which consists of two rooms with attached bath, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen etc. has been let out @ `15,000/- per month. It could also not be disputed that both the houses are located in Sector 38, Chandigarh and are facing the Southern Marg i.e. four lane road leading from ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ to ‘The Tribune’.

¶21

Not only this, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to rebut the aforesaid lease deed before the Appellate Authority.

¶22

Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

December 05, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE

Mohan Lal Sharma v. Chander Mohan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Sharma v. Chander Mohan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Datta Sardana Vs Amrita Nand

M/S Karam Singh Gian Singh &Anr. Vs Puran Chandtalwar & Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Tarawati and Others

Prem Chand Vs Ram Saran

Sunder Dass Vs Vinod Bala

Rakesh Kumar Vs Darshan Singh