JUDGMENT : (Harkesh Manuja, J.) This order of mine shall dispose the above-mentioned two revision petitions, wherein similar facts and controversy are involved. 2. By the way of CR No.3348 of 2024, challenge has been laid to an order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, whereby mesne profits @ Rs. 25,000/- per months have been assessed upon an application moved at the instance of respondent/landlord. Whereas, in CR No. 4158 of 2024 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’), at the instance of the respondent/landlord prayer has been made for modification of the aforesaid order dated 18.05.2024 seeking for the enhancement of mesne profits. 3. Briefly stating, an eviction petition came to be filed at instance of respondent/landlord in relation to the demised shop measuring 50 sq. yards (528 sq. feet) forming part of property No. 1618/XII-11, Old No.2232/11 situated in Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar. The eviction was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as personal necessity. The Rent Controller, Amritsar vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed eviction order against the petitioner/tenant. 4. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner-tenant filed first appeal, wherein after putting in appearance the respondent–landlord moved an application for grant of mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month. Petitioner/tenant opposed the same and filed reply to the aforesaid application. The Appellate Court vide its decision dated 18.05.2024 assessed the mesne profits @ Rs.25,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-landlord. Aggrieved against the said order, both the aforesaid revision petitions have been filed by the two sides. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that perusal of impugned order shows that the determination of mesne profits was based on mere self-estimation and judicial notice of the market rent in Amritsar by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further submits that even the lease deed dated 16.05.2023 as relied upon by the respondent/landlord could not be considered for the purpose of making assessment of mesne profits in favour of the respondent/landlord as the property involved therein was situated at a distance of around 300-400 meters from the demised premises and the area was totally different, thus, there is no similarity between the comparative location of the two premises. Learned counsel also points out that the property in relation to lease deed dated 16.05.2023 was rented out in favour of public institution and, thus, the same was not to be relied for the purpose of determination of mesne profits in the case in hand wherein the tenancy was in favour of a private individual. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the decision dated 07.11.2022 passed by this Court in CR No.6461 of 2014 titled ‘Naresh Kumar Jain vs. Deepak Jain and another’ reported as 2022(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 642. Relevant paragraph No.12 thereof is extracted hereunder:- “12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as records of the case. The principles enunciated in the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the Cases of R.K. Bansal Vs. Jag Pravesh Sharma, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 395; Vardhman Holdings Ltd. Vs. Ranbir Singh and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 164; Surinder Singh Vs. Dr. Davinder Mohan, 2006 (2) RCR (Rent) 26; M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Federal motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005(1) RCR (Rent) 1; Anderson Wright and co. Vs. Amar Nath Roy and others, 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 831; and Angoori Devi And Others Vs. Smt. Satya bhama, 2016 (5) RCR (civil) 1043; can be culled out in the following manner:- i) Determine of the mesne profits has to be made by way of the summary manner without there being any detailed trial; ii) It has to be based on cogent and reliable material placed on the record on the behalf by both the sides, primarily by the way of recent registered lease deeds pertaining to the locality concerned including any judicial determination; iii) While making assessment, Court needs to consider, age of building; Construction of building; its accessibility with the main road; parking space, facilities inside and outside the premises; advantages and dis-advantages attached to the premises; date of termination of tenancy; & change of market condition. iv) Though, it has to be akin market rent at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises, if a tenant would have vacated the same; yet a balance has to be drawn between the claims of the landlord and the tenant, making the assessment as reasonable so as not to be oppressive which in a given case, if tenant fails to pay, has no option; but to suffers the execution of the ejectment decree/order.” In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant further submits that in the absence of any cogent or relevant material been placed on record from the side of respondent/landlord, determination made by the Appellate Authority was not in consonance with the principles laid down by this Court in abovesaid case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent/landlord submits that the entire area wherein the demised property is situated happens to commercial as even the petitioner- tenant himself is running separate/different businesses in other adjoining premises though owned by his mother. Learned counsel further points out that in such circumstances, the petitioner-tenant has no justification to oppose the fact that the demised property being situated in the heart of the commercial locality was having potential to fetch higher rate. As regards the judicial notice been drawn by the Appellate Authority in this regard while making assessment of mesne profits, learned counsel relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘Rattan Arya vs. State of Tamil Nadu’ reported as 1986(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 328. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “We are entitled to take judicial notice of the enormous multifold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly in urban areas. It is common knowledge today that the accommodation which one could have possibly got for Rs. 400 per month in 1973 will today cost at least five times more. In these days of universal, day today escalation of rentals any ceiling such as that imposed by s. 30(ii) in 1973 can only be considered to be totally artificial and irrelevant today. Similarly, reliance has also been placed upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of ‘Pardeep Kumar Vs. Rajinder Kumar Shukla and another’ CR No.86 of 2014 decided on 11.01.2024. Similarly, reliance has also been placed upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of ‘Pardeep Kumar Vs. Rajinder Kumar Shukla and another’ CR No.86 of 2014 decided on 11.01.2024. Relevant extract thereof is expected as under:- “When there is no particular document then one of the criteria which a Court can take guidance is about the rate of gold which is directly proportional to the rate of inflation. In the year 1999, the rate of gold was Rs.4234/- per 10 grams and today it is rs.64,500/- per 10 grams. So, it be said that rate of gold is increased by 15.25 times from 1999.” 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper books. 8. In the present case, the demised premises were rented in favour of petitioner-tenant in the year 1989 @Rs.1500/- per month. Eviction order was passed against petitioner-tenant at the instance of respondent-landlord vide decision dated 03.07.2023 by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. Upon an application filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord seeking mesne profits, the same was assessed @Rs.25,000/- per month by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 18.05.202. Relevant paragraph No.9 from the impugned order is extracted hereunder:- “9. In the present case, mesne profits has demanded @ Rs.50,000/- to 70,000/- per month but no material to substantiate the same has been on record. At the same, this Court needs to adopt some Rules of rationally in such assessment. There cannot be any exact formula for assessing mesne profits, but it must Commensurate with rate of inflation. In such circumstances this Court has been left with no option to assess the mesne profit on the basis of estimation and judicial notice of the market rate in that market which is also assess on the basis of area occupied. It has emerged out that property in occupation of tenant is about 50yards keeping in view the overall circumstances, this Court feels that for such property in Amritsar, mesne-profits in Amritsar cannot less than Rs.20,000/- per month though demand is for ¹ 50,000/- to 70,000/- per month. Accordingly, mesne profits are ordered to be fixed @¹ 25,000/- per month from the dates of eviction during the entire continuation of appeal.” 9. Accordingly, mesne profits are ordered to be fixed @¹ 25,000/- per month from the dates of eviction during the entire continuation of appeal.” 9. In the humble opinion of this Courts, the submission raised on the behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant that the assessment of mesne profits made by the Appellate Authority on the basis for self-estimation and judicial notice of the market rent was impermissible, essentially lacks merit. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘Rattan Arya (supra) went on to assess the rent while recording that the Court was well within its right to take judicial notice of enormous multifold increase of rents throughout the country in the urban areas. In the present facts, the demised shop measuring 50Sq. yards (528Sq. feet) is situated in urban area of Amritsar forming part of a commercial locality i.e. Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar. The photograph pertaining to the demised property which has been placed on the record by respondent-landlord in his petition bearing No.CR No. 4158 of 2024 at page 78 at Annexure P-11 and has been disputed by the petitioner-tenant clearly shows that same is constituent fully developed commercial area and in such circumstances, no illegality can be found with estimation made by the Appellate Authority while taking judicial notice about the rate of rent qua the same. 10. Though some substance can be found in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that reliance cannot be placed upon the lease deed dated 16.05.2023 especially when the proximity and location of two premises has not been got compared on record and the said lease was presented by the respondent-landlord only at the time of making final submissions on the application qua determination of mesne Profits. 11. 11. Furthermore, considering the fact that the demised premises forms part of an already developed commercial area thickly surrounded by many other establishments, applying the formula/principles followed by this Court in case of Pardeep Kumar (supra), wherein guidance on the issue of assessment of mesne profits was drawn from the proportionate inflation towards the price of gold from the date of inception of tenancy till the date of ejectment order, the determination of mesne profits in the case in hand comes to around Rs.31,500/- per month(gold rate in the year 1989 was @ Rs.3140/- per 10 grams as compared to the rates on 03.07.2023 @ Rs.66,000/- per 10 grams, as per which appreciation comes to around 21 times). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.05.2024 is hereby modified, thereby assessing the mesne profits @31,500/-per month. The time for payment of total outstanding arrears towards mesne profits is extended upto 31.08.2024 and further till disposal of the appeal, payment of mesne profits @ Rs.31,500/- per month shall be made by 7th of every month and if there is holiday on the said day, payment be made on the next working day. In case of default this interim stay against eviction shall automatically stands vacated. 12. In view of above, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner-tenant is dismissed and the revision petition filed at the instance of respondent-landlord is partly accepted in the aforesaid terms. 13. Considering the fact that the ejectment petition in the present case on the plea of bona fide necessity was filed at the instance of respondent/landlord on 30.05.2018 and the eviction order was passed on 03.07.2023 and the first appeal is pending consideration for the last almost 01 year, the Appellate Authority is requested to decide the appeal on the date fixed or a month thereafter. 14. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.