- (1.) This petition is filed against the order dated 31.05.2014 by which the learned Appellate Authority has assessed the mesne profits @ Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. of the demised premises. The petitioner-Trust filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for eviction of the respondent-bank on the ground of personal necessity. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide its order dated 25.11.2013 which has been challenged by the respondent-bank in appeal.
(2.) The petitioner-trust filed an application for determination of mesne profits and the said application, after contest, has been allowed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner-trust has still filed the present revision petition being dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Appellate Authority and has prayed for its enhancement. The Appellate Authority had found that initially the demised premises was let out @ '1/- per sq. ft., revised to '1.75/- per sq. ft. and then @ '4/- per sq. ft. The Appellate Authority assessed the mesne profits @ Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. but the petitioner has alleged that the evidence led by the petitioner of the Punjab National Bank and Dena Bank, let out @ Rs. 22/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 43/- per sq. ft. respectively, have not been considered by the Appellate Authority while assessing the mesne profits. Counsel for the petitioners has also claimed that the mesne profits should have been assessed as per the rate of rent of SCO No.19, situated in Feroze Gandhi Market, which has been let out @ Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. or the HDFC Bank which is near the Fountain Chowk and has been let out @ Rs. 77/- per sq. ft. It is submitted that the petitioner-trust is aggrieved against the impugned order because no reason has been given for assessing the mesne profits at such a low rate despite the fact that the petitioners have produced on record sufficient material in the shape of the lease deeds of Dena Bank and the Punjab National Bank.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners, in order to substantiate his argument, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Ahmad and another v. Atma Ram Chauhan and others, 2011 162 PunLR 711 and two judgments of this Court in the cases of Ranjit Singh Rana v. Manpreet Phulka and others, 2011 163 PunLR 664 and M/s Salvo Furniture v. Shri Kartar Singh Dhillon and others, 2012 167 PunLR 73. It is contended that the Appellate Authority should have taken into consideration the prevailing rent of SCO No.19 for assessment of the mesne profits.;