Sabina, J.@mdashRespondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent. Ejectment
petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 15.01.2013 on the ground of personal necessity. Aggrieved against
the said order, petitioner has preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent moved an application for determination of mesne
profits. Vide the impugned order dated 20.04.2013, Appellate Authority has assessed the mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. Hence, the
present petition by the tenant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority has erred in determining the
mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. In fact, the premises in question was a Turi site and had been rented out at Rs. 1200/- per month. The
landlord was demanding Rs. 9,450/- per month as rent. The mesne profits had been assessed by the Appellate Authority at an exorbitant rate and
were liable to be reduced.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that, although, the site in question was reserved as a Turi site but the
petitioner was not using the same as a Turi site but was running a confectionery store. In the adjoining areas, now the rate of rent is Rs. 45,000/-
per month.
3. The Appellate Authority, while assessing the mesne profits has noticed that before the Rent Controller, the rate of rent was determined @ Rs.
4,000/- per month as agreed between the parties. The premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner in the year 1994. As per lease
deed dated 07.03.2010 placed on record, booth No. 12, Milk Colony Dhanas had been rented out at monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. So far as the
present shop is concerned, its area is about 5 times the area of booth No. 12, Milk Colony Dhanas. In these circumstances, the learned Appellate
Authority had rightly assessed the mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. The said rate cannot be said up on the higher side. In these
circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.