JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.: (Oral) - The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.03.2012 passed by Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby, mesne profits have been assessed at Rs.8,000. The ejectment order was passed against the tenant on 08.09.2011 by the Rent Controller from the premises in question which are two rooms, kitchen with common bath room, latrine and open space on the second floor of House No. 3308, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh on the ground of personal necessity. During the pendency of appeal before the appellate authority, the landlord filed an application for mesne profits. He contended that the prevailing rate of rent was Rs.10,000 per month and placed on record registered lease deed dated 29.06.2011 of the second floor of House No. 3256, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh having the same size as the demised premises. It was also alleged that second floor of House No. 3256, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh was earning 8,500 per month with 10% yearly increase and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to receive Rs.10,000 as mesne profits. 2. Keeping in view the said application, the Appellate Authority has directed that mesne profits at Rs.8,000 per month be paid after considering the location of the property in question. As a further safeguard, it was also ordered that the landlord would not be entitled to withdraw the mesne profits except the rate of rent which he was already receiving. The balance would remain lying with the Rent Controller and shall be paid to the party in whose favour the appeal is decided. The rate of rent was Rs.1,200 per month. Resultantly, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the conditions put by the Appellate Authority are very onerous and there is a substantial hike in the mesne profits and the tenant is being forced to pay Rs.8,000 per month from Rs.1,200 per month which she was paying. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (3) PLR 643 and Anderson Wright & Company vs. Amar Nath Roy, [2005(2) Law Herald (SC) 657] : 2005 (3) PLR 666 has held that once the ejectment order is passed, the contractual rate of rent comes to an end. 4. Counsel further contends that the accommodation is not as much as of House No. 3256, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh. The said submission is not acceptable. 4. Counsel further contends that the accommodation is not as much as of House No. 3256, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh. The said submission is not acceptable. There is a specific averment made in para no. 5 of the application filed by the landlord-respondent and in the corresponding reply and the said pleadings have not been rebutted. The same read as under:- “5. That the prevailing rate of rent of the demised premises is a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. In proof of the respondent places on the Court file a copy of registered sale deed dated 29.6.2011 of the second floor of House no. 3526, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh having the same size as the demised premises. The present rate of rent of second floor of House no. 3256, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh is Rs. 8,500/- p.m. with 10% yearly increase. In these circumstances, the petitioner/landlord is entitled to receive from the appellant Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as mesne profits. 5. That para no. 5 is wrong, hence denied. No such rules, precedent or law in force under EPURR Act, 1949 for claim of mesne profits. The authority mentioned is under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which are not applicable under EPURR Act, 1949. No such law is settled under this Act by the Apex Court or “Full Bench of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The mesne profits are always claimed in a Civil suit for recovery of possession of immovable property, which law is quite separate from the Rent Act under purview, hence there is no such law in force for residential as well as nonresidential or commercial buildings covered under EPURR Act, 1949 nor there is any precedent, hence the unregistered lease deed is mentioned in this para qua above matter is dispute is irrelevant and has got no meaning under the Rent legislation at Chandigarh, so the application is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed.” 5. Accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration as the said fact was not specifically denied before the appellate authority and neither any material was placed on record to show that rent was less than Rs.8,000 per month. Accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration as the said fact was not specifically denied before the appellate authority and neither any material was placed on record to show that rent was less than Rs.8,000 per month. Reliance has been placed upon Sadhu Ram vs. Parminder Singh, [2008(5) Law Herald (SC) 3428] : 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 903 to contend that in a shop-cum-flat, which was rented for Rs.500, the amount was reduced to Rs.5,000 from Rs.9,600 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. The submission is not liable to be accepted since in the said judgment, reduction was done in the facts of the said case and no question of law or guideline was laid down. This Court in Surinder Kumar vs. Rattan Lal, [2006(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1137] : 2006 (2) PLR 200 has held that registered lease deeds are a good barometer to assess the mesne profits keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and once the ejectment order is passed, the contractual rate of rent comes to an end. The appellate authority has followed a relevant yard stick which has been laid down by this Court and fixed mesne profits after taking into consideration the registered lease deed of House No. 3256 Sector 15-D, Chandigarh. The procedure followed by the appellate authority cannot be faulted with and interfered in revisional jurisdiction. 7. In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed. -------------------