This Court in Chameshwar Lall Sood’s case (supra)
was dealing with eviction of premises, which are situated at a
distance of about less than 200 metres from the premises in
question and this Court on the basis of evidence produced by
the landlord fixed the use and occupation charges @ Rs.250/per
sq. feet.
25 In the present case, even though the landlord has
not produced any such evidence but then he is well within his
right to place reliance on the decisions rendered by this
Court which can definitely be taken into consideration while
fixing the mesne profits and use and occupation charges.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CMP Nos. 8489/2017 and 8471/2018
in C.R. No. 196/2017
Date of decision : 28.12.2018
Amarjit Singh Bedi Vs. Sanjay Kuthiala and ors.
Coram
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
This order shall dispose of applications filed by
the tenant for setting aside portion of the operation of the
judgment dated 29.5.2017, whereby it upheld the order of
eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller on 4.9.2014
being CMP Nos. 8489/2017 and 8491/2017 and also dispose
of the applications filed by the landlords being CMP Nos.
8471/2018 and 9115/2018 for modifying/vacating the
interim order passed by this Court and for fixation of use and
occupation charges against the tenant.
The parties shall be referred to as the “landlords”
and the “tenant”.
3 The original land lady, Smt. Brij Bala Kuthiala,
who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the
learned Rent Controller, filed eviction petition against the
tenant from premises situated in building No.3/5, shop No.
3, alley No.3, Middle Bazaar,Shimla on the grounds that(
i)
the tenant was in arrears of rent of the demised premises
w.e.f. 1.3.2001; (ii) the demised premises had been sub let
by the tenant in favour of Vidur Singh Thakur without
written consent of the landlady in the year 2002; and (iii)
premises were bonafidely required by the landlady for
reconstruction and rebuilding, which cannot be carried out
without the demised premises being vacated.
3 This petition was partly allowed by the learned
Rent Controller vide order dated 4.9.2014 on the ground of
arrears of rent of the demised premises to the tune of
Rs.21,399.32/and
that the demised premises were
bonafidely required by the landlady for reconstruction and
rebuilding, which could not be carried out without being
vacated, whereas eviction on the ground of subletting was
dismissed.
4 Aggrieved by the order of eviction,the tenant filed
an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, whereas
aggrieved by the order of learned Rent Controller whereby
the eviction of the tenant was denied on the ground of
subletting, the landlord also constrained to file separate
appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Both these appeals
were taken up together for consideration and vide common
judgment dated 29.5.2017, the appeal filed by the landlord
was allowed whereby the tenant was also allowed to be
evicted on the ground of subletting, whereas the appeal filed
by the tenant was dismissed constraining the tenant to file
instant revision petitions.
5 At the outset, it needs to be observed that there
can be no dispute that once a decree for eviction has been
passed in that event the execution of decree for eviction can
be stayed only if the tenant is put to such reasonable terms
as would in the opinion of the Court, reasonably compensate
the landlord for loss occasioned by delay in execution of
decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal
being dismissed. There can be further no quarrel that with
effect from the date of decree of eviction, the tenant is liable
to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation
charges of the premises at the same rate at which the
landlord would have been able to let out the premises on
being vacated by the tenant.
6 It may also be observed that the courts after
passing of an order of eviction can always put the occupant
of the premises to terms including payment of mesne profit.
The very purpose of awarding mesne profit or use and
occupation charges is to put a check on the diabolical plans
of the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted and ensure
that he does not squat on the premises by paying a meager
rent. At the same time even the landlord is also compensated
to receive higher rent than the contractual rent.
7 This question has been considered in detail by
this Court in Champeshwar Lall Sood and another vs.
Gurpartap Singh and others, 2017 (2) RCR (Rent), 293,
wherein the further question as to how the mesne profits and
use and occupation charges are to be assessed, was also
considered in the aforesaid case and it was observed as
under:
“21. The fixation of mesne profits and use and
occupation charges are to be assessed on the basis of
the evidence led by the parties as to the prima facie
market value existing at the time of admission of the
appeal after the eviction order, which has been
exclusively bestowed on the landlord so that he would
be able to reasonably compensate for loss caused by
delay in execution of the decree by grant of stay order.
The Court while doing so is not to be guided by the
factors that the parties at one point of time while
creating the tenancy had agreed at a meager amount
of rent, it would depend upon the material produced
before the Court which under no circumstances can be
ignored even though thereafter the rent so fixed may
work out to be multiple times to the one which was
fixed at the time of creation of the tenancy.”
8 In this factual background, it is, therefore,
incumbent upon this Court to first decide the applications
filed by the landlords being CMP Nos. 8471/2018 and
9115/2018 for modifying/vacating the interim order passed
by this Court and for fixation of use and occupation charges
against the tenant. It is averred that the tenanted premises
are a shop measuring about 130 sq. ft. in the heart of Shimla
Town and situated barely 30 feet from the Scandal Point, The
Mall, Shimla and the similar premises in the locality are
being let out for over Rs.50,000/per
month. The tenanted
premises are located at a prime location and can, therefore,
easily be let out at a monthly rental of Rs.50,000/.
9 The tenant has contested the applications by filing
replies, wherein it is denied that the tenanted premises are
30 feet away from the Scandal Point, but it is admitted that
the tenant premises are situated in Alley No.3, which is
commonly known as Middle Bazaar, Shimla. However, it is
denied that the monthly rental of similar area is
Rs.50,000/.
It is averred that Shop No.46/14, located in the
same vicinity, i.e. Alley No.3 having an area of 200 sq. feet
has recently been rented out @ Rs.8000/per
month as per
agreement annexed with the report as Annexure PA. It is
also averred that in the same Alley, shop No.13 owned by
Punjab Wakf Board having an area of 177.30 sq. feet has
been leased out to one Ravi Gupta, resident of Shanti Sadan,
Keleston at the monthly rental of Rs.600/per
month as is
evident from the lease deed dated 14.3.2002, annexed with
the reply as Annexure PB.
10 The landlord has filed rejoinder(s), wherein it is
averred that the rent agreement in respect of shop No.46/14
is a manipulated and concocted as it has been executed by
the son of Vidhur Singh Thakur, who was earlier sublettee
of the tenant. It is further averred that the rent agreement
pertains to the year 2013 and it is a common knowledge that
the premises, which are subject matter of this agreement, are
situated in a narrow alley in the heart of Middle Bazaar and
were previously occupied by Kashmiri labourers. Vidhur
Singh Thakur had paid a huge amount of ‘Pagri’ both to the
Kashmiri labourers as well as to the landlord at the time of
taking these premises on rent, whereas the premises, which
form the subject matter of the rent agreement, cannot be
compared with the present tenanted premises in any manner
whatsoever. As regards other agreement annexed with the
reply, it is averred that the same pertains to the year 2002
and that too owned by the Punjab Wakf Board, which have
grossly been mismanaged and litigation regarding such
premises is repeatedly coming up before the Court. It is
averred that the rent of the premises similar to the premises
in question has been determined by this Court at the rate of
Rs.300/per
sq. feet. Reliance is placed on a judgment of
this Court in Civil Revision No.125/2016, wherein rent of a
shop at Ritz Cinema Shimla, which is located at a distance of
about 300 metres from Scandal Point has been fixed @ Rs.
400/per
sq. feet.
11 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have also gone through the material placed on record.
12 At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the
provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control act, 1987 have
been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in
Chaman Lal Bali vs. State of H.P., 2016(3) Shim.L.C.
1593, wherein the Division Bench was dealing with the
question where the landlord had claimed that even after an
ejectment order having been passed, there was no provision
for claiming mesne profits or use and occupation charges
and the tenant or sublette
or any other unauthorized
occupants could conveniently squat over the premises for
years and decades together by paying the contractual rent.
13 Negating the said contention, this Court after
placing reliance upon on various judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that from the date of passing of eviction
order, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or
compensation for use and occupation charges 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.
14 Answering the said question, It was held as
under:“
23. In Marshall Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs.
Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and another (1999) 2 SCC
325, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into
consideration the invariable delay in Court proceedings
held that reasonable mesne profit which may be
equivalent to the market rent should be awarded to
prevent parties in wrongful possession from taking
undue advantage of lengthy delays in the main
proceedings and thereafter in execution proceedings. It
is apt to reproduce paras 4 and 6 of the judgment
which read thus:
“4. From the narration of the facts, though it appears
to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of the
appellant is not being executed for some reason or the
other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct
the respondent to deliver the possession to the
appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still
pending. It is true that proceedings are dragged for a
long time on one count or the other and on occasion
become highly technical accompanied by unending
prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the
unwary. Because of the delay unscrupulous parties to
the proceedings take undue advantage and person
who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay
in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of
procedural complications. It is also known fact that
after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable
property, its execution takes long time. In such a
situation for protecting the interest of judgment creditor,
it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that
reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to
the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over
the property. In appropriate cases, Court may appoint
Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the
property to act as an agent of the Receiver with a
direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the
Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the
interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to
the plaintiff in whose favour decree is passed and to
protect the property including further alienation.
6. Having considered the relevant submissions of
the parties including the submissions with regard to
market rent and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the contentions of the parties in the pending
suit, we think it appropriate to dispose of this matter
with the following directions:
(1) That the suit in question be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year
from today;
(2) The respondents are directed to pay the mesne
profits/compensation at the rate of Rs.10/per
sq. ft.
from 1984 till today and at the rate of Rs.20/from
today till the disposal of the suit. While making this
payment, the payments already made shall be
adjusted. So far as the arrears are concerned, it be
paid in 12 equal monthly instalments.
24. The principle of determining mesne profits
after the eviction order has been passed and the right
of landlord to receive higher rent than the contractual
rent was established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P)
Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 wherein it was held as under:
“19. To sum up, our conclusions are:(
1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of
Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the
applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its
opinion reasonably compensate the decreeholder
for
loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the
grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being
dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are
concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be
reasonable.
(2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the
definition of tenant contained in clause (l) of Section 2
of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated
merely by its termination under the general law; it
terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction.
With effect from that 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.
The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of
rent effective for the period preceding the date of the
decree.
(3) the doctrine of merger does not have the effect of
postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely
because the decree of eviction stands merged in the
decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date.”
25. Notably, even though there is no express
provision in the Act for the grant of mesne profit, but
then, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Marshall Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P)
Ltd. and another (1999) 2 SCC 325 that once a
decree for possession has been passed and execution
is delayed depriving the judgmentcreditor
of the fruits
of decree, it is necessary for the Court to pass
appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profits
which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by
a person who is holding over the property.
26. Similar reiteration of law is found in the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anderson
Wright and Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy and others AIR
2005 SC 2457, wherein it was held as under:
“5. As held by this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P)
Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. , once a decree for
eviction has been passed, in the event of execution of
decree for eviction being stayed, the appellants can be
put on such reasonable terms, as would in the opinion
of the appellate court reasonably compensate the
decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution
of the decree by the grant of stay in the event of the
appeal being dismissed. It has also been held that with
effect from the date of decree of eviction, 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 on being vacated by the tenant. While
determining the quantum of the amount so receivable
by the landlord, the landlord is not bound by the
contractual rate of rent which was prevalent prior to
the date of decree.”
27. In State of Maharashtra and another
vs. M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and
others AIR 2010 SC 722, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that while admitting the appeal after ejectment
order, it is perfectly open to the appellate or the
revisional court to direct the tenant to pay rent higher
than the contractual rent, but the Court would not fix
any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. Since the
mesne profits are not assessed by the appellate
authority on the basis of the evidence led as per the
Act, by production of evidence, on fact on issue or
relevant facts, but is merely an assessment on the
basis of primafacie
market rate is existing at the time
of admission of the appeal after eviction order, a
benefit has been bestowed on the landlord that he
would be reasonably compensated for loss occasioned
by delay in execution of decree by grant of stay order.
The mesne profit or compensation payable to the
landlord is generally determined on the basis of the
cogent material placed on record by the parties in the
shape of the registered lease deeds of the locality
indicating the tentative amount of the rent which as the
landlord would be entitled to in a case he had rented
out the premises at the present market rate existing on
the date of ejectment. However, there is no straight
jacket formula.
28. It would be noticed that the entire subject
matter of mesne profits in the event of a decree of
eviction and appeal there against being filed, is a
judgemade
law chiseled out by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in its various pronouncements (some of which
have been cited above), the entire premise of the
aforesaid judgments is that once a decree of eviction is
passed, the tenant becomes unlawful occupant (subject
to his right in appeal/revision), therefore, any contract
between the parties also comes to an end. It is for this
reason that the Courts have carved out this new
principle for ensuring that the tenant in unlawful
possession does not further prejudice the landlord, who
is otherwise entitled to get possession of his property
and for this purpose, have laid down that the tenant
must pay a reasonable amount subject to the outcome
of the appeal/revision.
29. Even otherwise, the awarding of mesne
profits does put a check on the diabolical plans of the
tenant who has been ordered to be evicted to further
delay the matter and squat on the premises by paying
a nominal or meager rent.
15 It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid
exposition of law that the courts after passing of an order of
eviction can always put the occupant of the premises to
terms including payment of mesne profit. The very purpose of
awarding mesne profit or use and occupation charges is to
put a check on the diabolical plans of the tenant who has
been ordered to be evicted and ensure that he does not squat
on the premises by paying a meager rent. At the same time
even the landlord is also compensated to receive higher rent
than the contractual rent.
16 In Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has
been clearly laid down that the tenant with the passing of the
decree of eviction is liable to pay mesne profits or
compensation for use and occupation charges of the premises
at the same rate on which the landlord would have been able
to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have
vacated the premises.
17 Likewise, in Marshals Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs.
Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. (supra), it was categorically held that
once a decree for possession has been passed and execution
is delayed depriving the judgmentcreditor
of the fruits of
decree, it is necessary for the Court to pass appropriate
orders so that ‘reasonable’ mesne profits which may be
equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is
holding over the property.
18 At the same time, it was also held that while fixing
the amount, subject to payment of which the execution of the
order/decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint
and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount.
19 What is ‘reasonable’ is difficult to define and this
expression being a relative term is required to be considered
visàvis,
the fact situation obtaining in a particular case. A
three Hon’ble Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rena Drego (Mrs) vs. Lalchand Soni and others (1998) 3
SCC 341, considered the expression ‘reasonable’ in the
following terms::::
[9] It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word
'reasonable'. It is often said that "an attempt to give a
specific meaning to the word 'reasonable' is trying to
count what is not number and measure what is not
space." The author of 'Words and Phrases" (Permanent
Edition) has quoted from In re Nice and Schreiber, 123
F, 987, 999 to give a plausible meaning for the said
word. He says "the expression 'reasonable' is a relative
term, and the facts of the particular controversy must
be considered before the question as to what
constitutes reasonable can be determined." It is not
meant to be expedient or convenient but certainly
something more than that. While interpreting the word
'reasonable' in Section 13 of the Act, the Bombay High
Court has suggested in Krishchand Moorjimal v. Bai
Kalavati, AIR 1973 Bombay 46, "that the word
'reasonable' cannot mean convenient or luxurious,
though it may not necessarily exclude the idea of
convenience and comfort." However, the expression
reasonable can be taken as providing an angle which
is conformable or agreeable to reasons, having regard
to the facts of the particular controversy.
[10] In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath
Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497 : (AIR 1987 SC 2316),
this Court has stated that "the word 'reasonable' has in
law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to
those circumstances of which the actor, called upon to
act reasonably, knows or ought to know." This has
been reiterated by Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. (as his
Lordship then was) in Gujarat Water Supply and
Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) P. Ltd.,
(1989) 1 SCC 532 : (AIR 1989 SC 973).
20 The expression reasonable again came up for
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India vs. Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798. It was
held as under:“[
8] The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie
meaning of reasonable in regard to those
circumstances of which the actor, called on to act
reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to
give an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'.
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 2258
states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact
definition of the word "reasonable'. Reason varies in its
conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the
individual, and the times and circumstances in which
he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old
scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's
toy. (See: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Jagan
Nath Ashok Kumar and another (1987) 4 SCC 497. and
Gujarat Water Supplies and Sewerage Board v. Unique
Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. and another [(1989) 1 SCC
532].
[9] It is often said "an attempt to give a specific
meaning to the word 'reasonable' is trying to count
what is not number and measure what is not space".
The author of 'Words and Phrases' (Permanent Edition)
has quoted from in re Nice & Schreiber 123 F. 987, 988
to give a plausible meaning for the said word. He says,
"the expression 'reasonable' is a relative term, and the
facts of the particular controversy must be considered
before the question as to what constitutes reasonable
can be determined". It is not meant to be expedient or
convenient but certainly something more than that.
[10] The word 'reasonable' signifies "in accordance with
reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact,
whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends
on the circumstances in a given situation. (See:
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another
v. Kamla Mills Ltd. (2003) 6 SCC 315).”
21 Even otherwise the expression ‘reasonable’ would
only mean “rational according to the dictates of reason and
not excessive or immoderate”. An act is said to be reasonable
when it is conformable or agreeable to reason, having regard
to the facts of the particular controversy. In other words
‘reasonable’ would mean what is just, fair and equitable in
contradiction to anything whimsical, capricious etc. The word
‘reasonable’ has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in
regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned
is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as
to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an
exact definition of the word ‘reasonable’. The reason varies in
its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and
the time and circumstances in which he thinks, as has been
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veerayee Ammal vs.
Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134.
22 Therefore, the term ‘reasonable’, as has been used
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court is required to
be interpreted in a manner so as to ensure that the landlord
is reasonably compensated for the loss occurred by the delay
in execution of the decree by grant of stay order. The rent has
to be determined on case to case basis depending upon the
cogent material placed on record by the parties and would
therefore, normally be dependent upon the occupation, trade
or business etc. of the tenant and would further not be
dependent solely on the capacity to pay or actual earning of
the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction.
23 Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the
premises in question admittedly are nonresidential
and in fact
comprise of shop measuring 130 sq. feet.
24 This Court in Chameshwar Lall Sood’s case (supra)
was dealing with eviction of premises, which are situated at a
distance of about less than 200 metres from the premises in
question and this Court on the basis of evidence produced by
the landlord fixed the use and occupation charges @ Rs.250/per
sq. feet.
25 In the present case, even though the landlord has
not produced any such evidence but then he is well within his
right to place reliance on the decisions rendered by this
Court which can definitely be taken into consideration while
fixing the mesne profits and use and occupation charges.
26 The tenant has produced on record two rent
agreements/deeds.
27 As regards rent agreement, Annexure PA, produced
by the tenant, monthly rental has been fixed @ Rs.8000/qua
shop No.46/14 having an area of 200 sq. feet, which is located
in Alley No.3, Middle Bazaar Shimla, however, then admittedly
this shop has been rented out to one Dinesh Singh Thakur,
who is none other than the son of respondent No.3, who
happens to be the alleged sublettee
in the present case,
therefore, much credence cannot be lent to this document.
28 Adverting to the lease agreement annexed with the
reply as Annexure PB, it would not be noticed that lease
therein is alleged to have been executed on 14.3.2002 and
relates to a shop No.13/3 measuring 19.7 sq. yards at Middle
Bazaar Shimla. The monthly rental fixed therein is Rs.600/.
Much credence cannot be placed upon this document also as
16 years have passed from the date of execution of the alleged
agreement.
29 No doubt, even though the landlord has not placed
any contemporaneous record, which may remotely indicate or
show the prevalent rent in the vicinity, however, nonetheless
facts remains that these premises are situated in the Middle
Bazaar just about 30 feet away from the Scandal Point, which
in itself is a commercial and vending street/area having
astoundingly high commercial value and, to my mind, can
conveniently be rented out at monthly rental of Rs. 200 sq.
feet.
30 At this stage, I may also refer to a judgment passed
by a coordinate bench of this Court in C.R. No. 125/2016,
titled as Narinder Kumar vs. Rohit Madan and ors. on
3.8.2018, wherein the Court was dealing with the premises
situated at the ground floor of building, commonly termed as
Ritz Cine Complex and after placing reliance on the judgment
rendered by this Court in Champeshwar Lall Sood’s case, fair
rent was fixed @ Rs. 250 per sq. feet. Since the demised
premises comprise of 130 sq. feet, therefore, tenant is liable to
pay use and occupation charges @ Rs.26,000/per
month.
31 Accordingly, the interim order dated 6.10.2017 is
modified to the extent that the operation and execution of the
impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller and
judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority shall
remain stayed subject to the following terms:
(a) The tenant shall deposit use and occupation
charges @ Rs. 26,000/per
month with effect
from the date of eviction order i.e. 4.9.2014 and
the same shall be deposited by him in the trial
court.
(b)All arrears worked out on the aforesaid basis
shall be deposited within 30 days, failing
which the eviction order shall forthwith
become executable.
(c) All interim orders passed from time to time by
this Court shall be deemed to have merged
with this order.
32 It goes without saying that any observation
touching the merits of the case is purely for the purpose of
deciding the question(s) involved in these applications and shall
not be construed as an expression of final opinion in the main
matters or in any other proceedings.
Applications stand disposed of.
C.R. No. 196/2017 and C.R. 197/2017
List on 13.3.2019.
28.12.2018 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Print Page
was dealing with eviction of premises, which are situated at a
distance of about less than 200 metres from the premises in
question and this Court on the basis of evidence produced by
the landlord fixed the use and occupation charges @ Rs.250/per
sq. feet.
25 In the present case, even though the landlord has
not produced any such evidence but then he is well within his
right to place reliance on the decisions rendered by this
Court which can definitely be taken into consideration while
fixing the mesne profits and use and occupation charges.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CMP Nos. 8489/2017 and 8471/2018
in C.R. No. 196/2017
Date of decision : 28.12.2018
Amarjit Singh Bedi Vs. Sanjay Kuthiala and ors.
Coram
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
This order shall dispose of applications filed by
the tenant for setting aside portion of the operation of the
judgment dated 29.5.2017, whereby it upheld the order of
eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller on 4.9.2014
being CMP Nos. 8489/2017 and 8491/2017 and also dispose
of the applications filed by the landlords being CMP Nos.
8471/2018 and 9115/2018 for modifying/vacating the
interim order passed by this Court and for fixation of use and
occupation charges against the tenant.
The parties shall be referred to as the “landlords”
and the “tenant”.
3 The original land lady, Smt. Brij Bala Kuthiala,
who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the
learned Rent Controller, filed eviction petition against the
tenant from premises situated in building No.3/5, shop No.
3, alley No.3, Middle Bazaar,Shimla on the grounds that(
i)
the tenant was in arrears of rent of the demised premises
w.e.f. 1.3.2001; (ii) the demised premises had been sub let
by the tenant in favour of Vidur Singh Thakur without
written consent of the landlady in the year 2002; and (iii)
premises were bonafidely required by the landlady for
reconstruction and rebuilding, which cannot be carried out
without the demised premises being vacated.
3 This petition was partly allowed by the learned
Rent Controller vide order dated 4.9.2014 on the ground of
arrears of rent of the demised premises to the tune of
Rs.21,399.32/and
that the demised premises were
bonafidely required by the landlady for reconstruction and
rebuilding, which could not be carried out without being
vacated, whereas eviction on the ground of subletting was
dismissed.
4 Aggrieved by the order of eviction,the tenant filed
an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, whereas
aggrieved by the order of learned Rent Controller whereby
the eviction of the tenant was denied on the ground of
subletting, the landlord also constrained to file separate
appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Both these appeals
were taken up together for consideration and vide common
judgment dated 29.5.2017, the appeal filed by the landlord
was allowed whereby the tenant was also allowed to be
evicted on the ground of subletting, whereas the appeal filed
by the tenant was dismissed constraining the tenant to file
instant revision petitions.
5 At the outset, it needs to be observed that there
can be no dispute that once a decree for eviction has been
passed in that event the execution of decree for eviction can
be stayed only if the tenant is put to such reasonable terms
as would in the opinion of the Court, reasonably compensate
the landlord for loss occasioned by delay in execution of
decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal
being dismissed. There can be further no quarrel that with
effect from the date of decree of eviction, the tenant is liable
to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation
charges of the premises at the same rate at which the
landlord would have been able to let out the premises on
being vacated by the tenant.
6 It may also be observed that the courts after
passing of an order of eviction can always put the occupant
of the premises to terms including payment of mesne profit.
The very purpose of awarding mesne profit or use and
occupation charges is to put a check on the diabolical plans
of the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted and ensure
that he does not squat on the premises by paying a meager
rent. At the same time even the landlord is also compensated
to receive higher rent than the contractual rent.
7 This question has been considered in detail by
this Court in Champeshwar Lall Sood and another vs.
Gurpartap Singh and others, 2017 (2) RCR (Rent), 293,
wherein the further question as to how the mesne profits and
use and occupation charges are to be assessed, was also
considered in the aforesaid case and it was observed as
under:
“21. The fixation of mesne profits and use and
occupation charges are to be assessed on the basis of
the evidence led by the parties as to the prima facie
market value existing at the time of admission of the
appeal after the eviction order, which has been
exclusively bestowed on the landlord so that he would
be able to reasonably compensate for loss caused by
delay in execution of the decree by grant of stay order.
The Court while doing so is not to be guided by the
factors that the parties at one point of time while
creating the tenancy had agreed at a meager amount
of rent, it would depend upon the material produced
before the Court which under no circumstances can be
ignored even though thereafter the rent so fixed may
work out to be multiple times to the one which was
fixed at the time of creation of the tenancy.”
8 In this factual background, it is, therefore,
incumbent upon this Court to first decide the applications
filed by the landlords being CMP Nos. 8471/2018 and
9115/2018 for modifying/vacating the interim order passed
by this Court and for fixation of use and occupation charges
against the tenant. It is averred that the tenanted premises
are a shop measuring about 130 sq. ft. in the heart of Shimla
Town and situated barely 30 feet from the Scandal Point, The
Mall, Shimla and the similar premises in the locality are
being let out for over Rs.50,000/per
month. The tenanted
premises are located at a prime location and can, therefore,
easily be let out at a monthly rental of Rs.50,000/.
9 The tenant has contested the applications by filing
replies, wherein it is denied that the tenanted premises are
30 feet away from the Scandal Point, but it is admitted that
the tenant premises are situated in Alley No.3, which is
commonly known as Middle Bazaar, Shimla. However, it is
denied that the monthly rental of similar area is
Rs.50,000/.
It is averred that Shop No.46/14, located in the
same vicinity, i.e. Alley No.3 having an area of 200 sq. feet
has recently been rented out @ Rs.8000/per
month as per
agreement annexed with the report as Annexure PA. It is
also averred that in the same Alley, shop No.13 owned by
Punjab Wakf Board having an area of 177.30 sq. feet has
been leased out to one Ravi Gupta, resident of Shanti Sadan,
Keleston at the monthly rental of Rs.600/per
month as is
evident from the lease deed dated 14.3.2002, annexed with
the reply as Annexure PB.
10 The landlord has filed rejoinder(s), wherein it is
averred that the rent agreement in respect of shop No.46/14
is a manipulated and concocted as it has been executed by
the son of Vidhur Singh Thakur, who was earlier sublettee
of the tenant. It is further averred that the rent agreement
pertains to the year 2013 and it is a common knowledge that
the premises, which are subject matter of this agreement, are
situated in a narrow alley in the heart of Middle Bazaar and
were previously occupied by Kashmiri labourers. Vidhur
Singh Thakur had paid a huge amount of ‘Pagri’ both to the
Kashmiri labourers as well as to the landlord at the time of
taking these premises on rent, whereas the premises, which
form the subject matter of the rent agreement, cannot be
compared with the present tenanted premises in any manner
whatsoever. As regards other agreement annexed with the
reply, it is averred that the same pertains to the year 2002
and that too owned by the Punjab Wakf Board, which have
grossly been mismanaged and litigation regarding such
premises is repeatedly coming up before the Court. It is
averred that the rent of the premises similar to the premises
in question has been determined by this Court at the rate of
Rs.300/per
sq. feet. Reliance is placed on a judgment of
this Court in Civil Revision No.125/2016, wherein rent of a
shop at Ritz Cinema Shimla, which is located at a distance of
about 300 metres from Scandal Point has been fixed @ Rs.
400/per
sq. feet.
11 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have also gone through the material placed on record.
12 At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the
provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control act, 1987 have
been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in
Chaman Lal Bali vs. State of H.P., 2016(3) Shim.L.C.
1593, wherein the Division Bench was dealing with the
question where the landlord had claimed that even after an
ejectment order having been passed, there was no provision
for claiming mesne profits or use and occupation charges
and the tenant or sublette
or any other unauthorized
occupants could conveniently squat over the premises for
years and decades together by paying the contractual rent.
13 Negating the said contention, this Court after
placing reliance upon on various judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that from the date of passing of eviction
order, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or
compensation for use and occupation charges 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.
14 Answering the said question, It was held as
under:“
23. In Marshall Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs.
Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and another (1999) 2 SCC
325, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into
consideration the invariable delay in Court proceedings
held that reasonable mesne profit which may be
equivalent to the market rent should be awarded to
prevent parties in wrongful possession from taking
undue advantage of lengthy delays in the main
proceedings and thereafter in execution proceedings. It
is apt to reproduce paras 4 and 6 of the judgment
which read thus:
“4. From the narration of the facts, though it appears
to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of the
appellant is not being executed for some reason or the
other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct
the respondent to deliver the possession to the
appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still
pending. It is true that proceedings are dragged for a
long time on one count or the other and on occasion
become highly technical accompanied by unending
prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the
unwary. Because of the delay unscrupulous parties to
the proceedings take undue advantage and person
who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay
in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of
procedural complications. It is also known fact that
after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable
property, its execution takes long time. In such a
situation for protecting the interest of judgment creditor,
it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that
reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to
the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over
the property. In appropriate cases, Court may appoint
Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the
property to act as an agent of the Receiver with a
direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the
Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the
interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to
the plaintiff in whose favour decree is passed and to
protect the property including further alienation.
6. Having considered the relevant submissions of
the parties including the submissions with regard to
market rent and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the contentions of the parties in the pending
suit, we think it appropriate to dispose of this matter
with the following directions:
(1) That the suit in question be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year
from today;
(2) The respondents are directed to pay the mesne
profits/compensation at the rate of Rs.10/per
sq. ft.
from 1984 till today and at the rate of Rs.20/from
today till the disposal of the suit. While making this
payment, the payments already made shall be
adjusted. So far as the arrears are concerned, it be
paid in 12 equal monthly instalments.
24. The principle of determining mesne profits
after the eviction order has been passed and the right
of landlord to receive higher rent than the contractual
rent was established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P)
Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 wherein it was held as under:
“19. To sum up, our conclusions are:(
1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of
Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the
applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its
opinion reasonably compensate the decreeholder
for
loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the
grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being
dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are
concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be
reasonable.
(2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the
definition of tenant contained in clause (l) of Section 2
of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated
merely by its termination under the general law; it
terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction.
With effect from that 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.
The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of
rent effective for the period preceding the date of the
decree.
(3) the doctrine of merger does not have the effect of
postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely
because the decree of eviction stands merged in the
decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date.”
25. Notably, even though there is no express
provision in the Act for the grant of mesne profit, but
then, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Marshall Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P)
Ltd. and another (1999) 2 SCC 325 that once a
decree for possession has been passed and execution
is delayed depriving the judgmentcreditor
of the fruits
of decree, it is necessary for the Court to pass
appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profits
which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by
a person who is holding over the property.
26. Similar reiteration of law is found in the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anderson
Wright and Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy and others AIR
2005 SC 2457, wherein it was held as under:
“5. As held by this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P)
Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. , once a decree for
eviction has been passed, in the event of execution of
decree for eviction being stayed, the appellants can be
put on such reasonable terms, as would in the opinion
of the appellate court reasonably compensate the
decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution
of the decree by the grant of stay in the event of the
appeal being dismissed. It has also been held that with
effect from the date of decree of eviction, 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 on being vacated by the tenant. While
determining the quantum of the amount so receivable
by the landlord, the landlord is not bound by the
contractual rate of rent which was prevalent prior to
the date of decree.”
27. In State of Maharashtra and another
vs. M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and
others AIR 2010 SC 722, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that while admitting the appeal after ejectment
order, it is perfectly open to the appellate or the
revisional court to direct the tenant to pay rent higher
than the contractual rent, but the Court would not fix
any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. Since the
mesne profits are not assessed by the appellate
authority on the basis of the evidence led as per the
Act, by production of evidence, on fact on issue or
relevant facts, but is merely an assessment on the
basis of primafacie
market rate is existing at the time
of admission of the appeal after eviction order, a
benefit has been bestowed on the landlord that he
would be reasonably compensated for loss occasioned
by delay in execution of decree by grant of stay order.
The mesne profit or compensation payable to the
landlord is generally determined on the basis of the
cogent material placed on record by the parties in the
shape of the registered lease deeds of the locality
indicating the tentative amount of the rent which as the
landlord would be entitled to in a case he had rented
out the premises at the present market rate existing on
the date of ejectment. However, there is no straight
jacket formula.
28. It would be noticed that the entire subject
matter of mesne profits in the event of a decree of
eviction and appeal there against being filed, is a
judgemade
law chiseled out by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in its various pronouncements (some of which
have been cited above), the entire premise of the
aforesaid judgments is that once a decree of eviction is
passed, the tenant becomes unlawful occupant (subject
to his right in appeal/revision), therefore, any contract
between the parties also comes to an end. It is for this
reason that the Courts have carved out this new
principle for ensuring that the tenant in unlawful
possession does not further prejudice the landlord, who
is otherwise entitled to get possession of his property
and for this purpose, have laid down that the tenant
must pay a reasonable amount subject to the outcome
of the appeal/revision.
29. Even otherwise, the awarding of mesne
profits does put a check on the diabolical plans of the
tenant who has been ordered to be evicted to further
delay the matter and squat on the premises by paying
a nominal or meager rent.
15 It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid
exposition of law that the courts after passing of an order of
eviction can always put the occupant of the premises to
terms including payment of mesne profit. The very purpose of
awarding mesne profit or use and occupation charges is to
put a check on the diabolical plans of the tenant who has
been ordered to be evicted and ensure that he does not squat
on the premises by paying a meager rent. At the same time
even the landlord is also compensated to receive higher rent
than the contractual rent.
16 In Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has
been clearly laid down that the tenant with the passing of the
decree of eviction is liable to pay mesne profits or
compensation for use and occupation charges of the premises
at the same rate on which the landlord would have been able
to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have
vacated the premises.
17 Likewise, in Marshals Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs.
Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. (supra), it was categorically held that
once a decree for possession has been passed and execution
is delayed depriving the judgmentcreditor
of the fruits of
decree, it is necessary for the Court to pass appropriate
orders so that ‘reasonable’ mesne profits which may be
equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is
holding over the property.
18 At the same time, it was also held that while fixing
the amount, subject to payment of which the execution of the
order/decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint
and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount.
19 What is ‘reasonable’ is difficult to define and this
expression being a relative term is required to be considered
visàvis,
the fact situation obtaining in a particular case. A
three Hon’ble Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rena Drego (Mrs) vs. Lalchand Soni and others (1998) 3
SCC 341, considered the expression ‘reasonable’ in the
following terms::::
[9] It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word
'reasonable'. It is often said that "an attempt to give a
specific meaning to the word 'reasonable' is trying to
count what is not number and measure what is not
space." The author of 'Words and Phrases" (Permanent
Edition) has quoted from In re Nice and Schreiber, 123
F, 987, 999 to give a plausible meaning for the said
word. He says "the expression 'reasonable' is a relative
term, and the facts of the particular controversy must
be considered before the question as to what
constitutes reasonable can be determined." It is not
meant to be expedient or convenient but certainly
something more than that. While interpreting the word
'reasonable' in Section 13 of the Act, the Bombay High
Court has suggested in Krishchand Moorjimal v. Bai
Kalavati, AIR 1973 Bombay 46, "that the word
'reasonable' cannot mean convenient or luxurious,
though it may not necessarily exclude the idea of
convenience and comfort." However, the expression
reasonable can be taken as providing an angle which
is conformable or agreeable to reasons, having regard
to the facts of the particular controversy.
[10] In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath
Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497 : (AIR 1987 SC 2316),
this Court has stated that "the word 'reasonable' has in
law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to
those circumstances of which the actor, called upon to
act reasonably, knows or ought to know." This has
been reiterated by Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. (as his
Lordship then was) in Gujarat Water Supply and
Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) P. Ltd.,
(1989) 1 SCC 532 : (AIR 1989 SC 973).
20 The expression reasonable again came up for
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India vs. Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798. It was
held as under:“[
8] The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie
meaning of reasonable in regard to those
circumstances of which the actor, called on to act
reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to
give an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'.
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 2258
states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact
definition of the word "reasonable'. Reason varies in its
conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the
individual, and the times and circumstances in which
he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old
scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's
toy. (See: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Jagan
Nath Ashok Kumar and another (1987) 4 SCC 497. and
Gujarat Water Supplies and Sewerage Board v. Unique
Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. and another [(1989) 1 SCC
532].
[9] It is often said "an attempt to give a specific
meaning to the word 'reasonable' is trying to count
what is not number and measure what is not space".
The author of 'Words and Phrases' (Permanent Edition)
has quoted from in re Nice & Schreiber 123 F. 987, 988
to give a plausible meaning for the said word. He says,
"the expression 'reasonable' is a relative term, and the
facts of the particular controversy must be considered
before the question as to what constitutes reasonable
can be determined". It is not meant to be expedient or
convenient but certainly something more than that.
[10] The word 'reasonable' signifies "in accordance with
reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact,
whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends
on the circumstances in a given situation. (See:
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another
v. Kamla Mills Ltd. (2003) 6 SCC 315).”
21 Even otherwise the expression ‘reasonable’ would
only mean “rational according to the dictates of reason and
not excessive or immoderate”. An act is said to be reasonable
when it is conformable or agreeable to reason, having regard
to the facts of the particular controversy. In other words
‘reasonable’ would mean what is just, fair and equitable in
contradiction to anything whimsical, capricious etc. The word
‘reasonable’ has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in
regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned
is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as
to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an
exact definition of the word ‘reasonable’. The reason varies in
its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and
the time and circumstances in which he thinks, as has been
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veerayee Ammal vs.
Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134.
22 Therefore, the term ‘reasonable’, as has been used
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court is required to
be interpreted in a manner so as to ensure that the landlord
is reasonably compensated for the loss occurred by the delay
in execution of the decree by grant of stay order. The rent has
to be determined on case to case basis depending upon the
cogent material placed on record by the parties and would
therefore, normally be dependent upon the occupation, trade
or business etc. of the tenant and would further not be
dependent solely on the capacity to pay or actual earning of
the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction.
23 Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the
premises in question admittedly are nonresidential
and in fact
comprise of shop measuring 130 sq. feet.
24 This Court in Chameshwar Lall Sood’s case (supra)
was dealing with eviction of premises, which are situated at a
distance of about less than 200 metres from the premises in
question and this Court on the basis of evidence produced by
the landlord fixed the use and occupation charges @ Rs.250/per
sq. feet.
25 In the present case, even though the landlord has
not produced any such evidence but then he is well within his
right to place reliance on the decisions rendered by this
Court which can definitely be taken into consideration while
fixing the mesne profits and use and occupation charges.
26 The tenant has produced on record two rent
agreements/deeds.
27 As regards rent agreement, Annexure PA, produced
by the tenant, monthly rental has been fixed @ Rs.8000/qua
shop No.46/14 having an area of 200 sq. feet, which is located
in Alley No.3, Middle Bazaar Shimla, however, then admittedly
this shop has been rented out to one Dinesh Singh Thakur,
who is none other than the son of respondent No.3, who
happens to be the alleged sublettee
in the present case,
therefore, much credence cannot be lent to this document.
28 Adverting to the lease agreement annexed with the
reply as Annexure PB, it would not be noticed that lease
therein is alleged to have been executed on 14.3.2002 and
relates to a shop No.13/3 measuring 19.7 sq. yards at Middle
Bazaar Shimla. The monthly rental fixed therein is Rs.600/.
Much credence cannot be placed upon this document also as
16 years have passed from the date of execution of the alleged
agreement.
29 No doubt, even though the landlord has not placed
any contemporaneous record, which may remotely indicate or
show the prevalent rent in the vicinity, however, nonetheless
facts remains that these premises are situated in the Middle
Bazaar just about 30 feet away from the Scandal Point, which
in itself is a commercial and vending street/area having
astoundingly high commercial value and, to my mind, can
conveniently be rented out at monthly rental of Rs. 200 sq.
feet.
30 At this stage, I may also refer to a judgment passed
by a coordinate bench of this Court in C.R. No. 125/2016,
titled as Narinder Kumar vs. Rohit Madan and ors. on
3.8.2018, wherein the Court was dealing with the premises
situated at the ground floor of building, commonly termed as
Ritz Cine Complex and after placing reliance on the judgment
rendered by this Court in Champeshwar Lall Sood’s case, fair
rent was fixed @ Rs. 250 per sq. feet. Since the demised
premises comprise of 130 sq. feet, therefore, tenant is liable to
pay use and occupation charges @ Rs.26,000/per
month.
31 Accordingly, the interim order dated 6.10.2017 is
modified to the extent that the operation and execution of the
impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller and
judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority shall
remain stayed subject to the following terms:
(a) The tenant shall deposit use and occupation
charges @ Rs. 26,000/per
month with effect
from the date of eviction order i.e. 4.9.2014 and
the same shall be deposited by him in the trial
court.
(b)All arrears worked out on the aforesaid basis
shall be deposited within 30 days, failing
which the eviction order shall forthwith
become executable.
(c) All interim orders passed from time to time by
this Court shall be deemed to have merged
with this order.
32 It goes without saying that any observation
touching the merits of the case is purely for the purpose of
deciding the question(s) involved in these applications and shall
not be construed as an expression of final opinion in the main
matters or in any other proceedings.
Applications stand disposed of.
C.R. No. 196/2017 and C.R. 197/2017
List on 13.3.2019.
28.12.2018 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
No comments:
Post a Comment