Disposed

Sukhdev Kumar v. Vijay Kumar Bhatia

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2025CR/6452/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross civil revisions against an appellate order fixing monthly mesne profits at ₹25,000 pending rent appeal after eviction of a shop tenant. Holding the order arbitrary and unreasoned given comparable local rents of ₹1,000–₹3,500, the High Court set it aside and remitted reassessment to the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order fixing mesne profits at ₹25,000/- per month set aside; matter remitted to Appellate Authority, Amritsar, for fresh reasoned reassessment within six weeks.

Sukhdev Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CR-6452-2025 (O&M) and CR-6385-2025 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

Decided on :- 17.09.2025

¶6

CR-6452-2025 (O&M) Sukhdev Kuma r ....Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS Vijay Kumar B h atia ....Responden t 2. CR-6385-2025 (O&M) Vijay Kumar B h atia ....Petitioner VERSUS Sukhdev Kuma r ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶9

Present: CR-6452-2025

¶10

M r . A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for t h e petitioner M r . Divanshu Jain, Advocate for t h e respondent-Caveator. CR-6385-2025 M r . Divanshu Jain, Advocate for t h e petitioner. M r . A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for t h e respondent.

¶11

-.-

¶12

MANDEEP PANNU J.

¶13

Th e above-mentioned two civil r evisions have been filed by the petitioner-tenan t challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Appel l ate TRIPTI SAINIAuthority, Amr i tsar in Rent Appeal No. 48 of 2 023, whereby the application f i led 2025.09.18 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CR-6452-2025 (O&M) and CR-6385-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶15

by the respondent-landlord for fixation of mesn e profits during pendency of ap p eal was allowed a n d the petitioner was directed t o pay mesne profits at the rat e of ₹25,000/- per m onth from the date of eviction o r der till disposal of the appeal.

¶16

Brief Facts

¶17

Th e background facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petitio n against the petitioner-tenant for eviction of a shop measu r ing 6.10’ × 28’ sit u ated in Bazar Tahli Sahib, A m ritsar, on the ground of pers o nal requirement. T h e Rent Controller, Amritsar al l owed the petition vide order d a ted 12.07.2023. Th e rate of rent pleaded in the evic t ion petition was ₹150/- per mo n th. The tenancy or i ginated in the year 1980 thro u gh the parents of the parties, a nd after their dem i se, the relationship of landlord and tenant continued between the parties.

¶18

Aggrieved by the eviction order, t h e petitioner filed Rent Appeal N o. 48 of 2023 alo n g with an application for stay o f operation of the impugned or d er. During penden c y of the appeal, the respondent-landlord moved an application for fixation of mes n e profits, asserting that the pre v ailing market rent of similar shops in the locality w as between ₹80,000/- and ₹1, 0 0,000/- per month. The petiti o ner filed reply asse r ting that the rent in the locality w as around ₹1,000/- to ₹2,000/per month.

¶19

In support of their respective stan d s, both sides produced docum e nts in the shape of rent deeds. The petitioner plac e d on record at least ten rent n o tes pertaining to si m ilarly situated properties in th e same locality, including two r ent notes executed by the respondent’s own broth e r and close relatives in respec t of adjoining prop e rties, which recorded rent o f about ₹2,000/- per month. T he TRIPTI SAINIrespondent also placed on record several rent n o tes and lease deeds, most of w h ich 2025.09.18 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CR-6452-2025 (O&M) and CR-6385-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶21

related to properties in other localities and wer e of much larger premises let o u t to corporate hous e s and banks, fetching very high rentals. Only one rent note file d by the respondent- V ijay Kumar Bhatia related to t h e same locality, where the rent w as ₹3,500/- per m o nth.

¶22

It i s the case of the petitioner t h at despite this clear documen t ary evidence, the Appellate Authority witho u t discussing or analysing the comparability of the rent notes or assigning co g ent reasons, arbitrarily fixed m e sne profits at the r ate of ₹25,000/- per month. I t is contended that the Appel l ate Authority did not apply its judicial mind, faile d to examine the size, location a nd nature of prope r ties cited by the parties, and ar r ived at a figure without any b a sis. Reliance has b e en placed upon a judgment of H on’ble Supreme Court in the c ase of Mohammad Ahmad and Another Vs. Atma Ram Chauhan and Others [2011(1) RCR (Rent) 394] and judgment of thi s Court in M/s Kanhiya Lal Madho Ram and Others Vs. Arun Kumar and Another [2024(1) RCR (Rent) 531] 6. O n the other hand, the responden t , who appeared on caveat and has filed C.R No.6 3 85 of 2025, has argued that aft e r passing of the eviction order, the status of the pe t itioner is that of an unauthoriz e d occupant, and he is liable to p ay mesne profits f o r use and occupation of the pre m ises at the prevailing market rate. It is submitted t h at the Appellate Authority has awarded mesne profits at ₹25,0 0 0/per month on l e sser side, keeping in view the r ise in property values and rent s in the locality, an d that it should be enhanced. In support of his submission, lear n ed counsel has pla c ed reliance upon the judgment o f Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF Vs. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai [2024(2) PLR 141] and R.K.Bansal Vs. Jag Pravesh Sharma [2012(3) RCR (Rent) 203] .

¶23

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.18 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CR-6452-2025 (O&M) and CR-6385-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶25

I h ave heard learned counsel for t he parties and perused the rec o rd. The power of t h e Appellate Authority to awar d mesne profits during pendenc y of appeal is well r ecognized, being an equitable measure to protect the landlo r d’s interest where e viction has been ordered but execution is delayed due to pende n cy of appeal. Ho w ever, the assessment of mesne profits must be based on rele v ant material, guide d by principles laid down by th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in ab o vementioned case law, wherein it has been held t h at mesne profits are compensa t ory in nature, must reflect a just and reasonable assessment of the rental value of the property in que s tion, and cannot be fixed arbitr a rily or without recording reasons. 8. In the present case, the docu m entary record placed before the Appellate Auth o rity clearly indicates that the rent of comparable shops in the s a me locality, including those owned by the landlor d ’s own relatives, is in the rang e of ₹1,000/- to ₹3, 5 00/- per month. The rent deeds r elied upon by the landlord to s h ow rates as high as ₹80,000/- per month pertain t o properties, either situated in o t her localities or i n volving large commercial establishments such as banks a nd corporate hou s es. The Appellate Authori t y, however, without analy s ing comparability o r assigning reasons, jumped to the figure of ₹25,000/- per mo n th. The order does n ot show application of judicial mind and is not sustainable. 9. Th e object of awarding mesne profits is to ensure that the landlor d is compensated d u ring pendency of appeal. Ho w ever, such compensation mus t be fair, just, and b ased on relevant factors such as the nature of the premises, the locality, size, a n d contemporaneous rental trans a ctions.

¶26

Ac c ordingly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2025, in so far as it fixes mesne pr o fits at ₹25,000/- per month, is s et aside. The matter is remitte d to TRIPTI SAINIthe learned Ap p ellate Authority, Amritsar, to r e -assess mesne profits afresh on the 2025.09.18 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CR-6452-2025 (O&M) and CR-6385-2025 (O&M) - 5 -

¶28

basis of the m a terial already on record and a n y additional material that ma y be produced by th e parties, by considering only c o mparable rent notes relating to the same locality a n d similar shops, after recordin g cogent reasons and on the basi s of above-mention e d case laws cited by both t h e parties. The exercise shall be completed exp e ditiously, preferably within a p e riod of six weeks from the dat e of receipt of copy o f this order.

¶29

It is made clear that this Court ha s not expressed any opinion on the merits of the e v iction order or other pending a p plications, which shall be deci d ed independently.

¶30

Th e civil revisions are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 13. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

September 17, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whether s peaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶32

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.18 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhdev Kumar v. Vijay Kumar Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Kumar v. Vijay Kumar Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nachhattar Kaur Vs Baldev Singh

Ajmu Vs UOI Andothers

State of Haryana Vs the Delhi Pinjra Society etc.

Vijay Kumar Bhatia Vs Sukhdev Kumar

Sodhi Vikram Singh Vs Tikka Sodhi Harkirat Singh and Others

Shiam Alias Shyam Singh Vs Ishri Parsad Alias Ishwari Parsad and Others