Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) ON a petition filed by Tilak Raj, landlord of the demised premises, tenant Ish Kumar Batra is ordered to be evicted from the part of building bearing Number 239, Block No. XIV situated at Hisar. He has accordingly filed an appeal against his ejectment before Additional District Judge, Hisar alongwith the stay application for staying his eviction from the demised property during the pendency of appeal, which is pending. Landlord Tilak Raj, while contesting the application for stay, alternatively prayed that tenant be asked to pay mesne profits for use and occupation of the tenanted premises during the pendency of appeal. After hearing the counsel, the Appellate Court assessed the monthly rate of rent of the demised premises as Rs. 2,000/ - per month. While so holding, the Court has referred to instances of rent produced before it in regard to certain shops in the area. The eviction of the petitioner was accordingly stayed subject to payment of rent @ Rs. 2,000/ - per month from the date of order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller, Hisar, i.e. 28.11.2007.
(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no provision under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, (for short, "the Act") for assessing the fair rent and as such, the order can not be sustained. In Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2005(1) RCR 1, it is urged that the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits from the date the decree of eviction is effective. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram (supra) has clearly observed that on an order of eviction having been made, tenancy comes to an end. The tenant then becomes an unauthorized occupant from the date of such eviction. The Supreme Court further went on to hold that the tenancy stands terminated with the passing of a decree of eviction and with effect from the said date the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. View further is that the landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective from the date preceding the date of decree. It has accordingly been held that if the tenant wants to occupy the premises from where he is ordered to be ejected, then he has to pay fair rent prevalent in the market and not the agreed rent. The provisions under the Act would not have any relevance in this regard and this principle as laid down by the Supreme Court would not bear any exception for its applicability. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.;