In the present case, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the yardstick for such compensation can only be the loss of earnings from business that the landlord/respondent proposes to start on eviction of the tenant/petitioner, cannot be accepted. Though this can be one of the criteria to be kept in view by the court while determining the reasonable condition to be imposed on the tenant, other considerations like the rent of similar properties, would be equally, if not more, relevant for such determination. The yardstick for determining the mesne profits/terms that would reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occurred in delay in execution of the decree would not only be the loss of income from the business for which the landlord intends to put the property to use but the rent which the landlord may have to pay for obtaining a similar premises on rent for running the business which he intends to run from the tenanted premises. For this purpose, the lease deeds of the premises in the same locality are the best comparatives, duly adjusted for the area and the conditions of the tenanted premises. The paying capacity of the petitioner/tenant cannot normally be a relevant consideration for such determination.
17. A reading of the above provision would show that the landlord on obtaining the possession of the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(c) of the Act needs to obtain permission of the controller to re-let the whole or part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining such possession. Incase the landlord does not occupy the premises within two months of obtaining possession or, the premises having been so occupied, at any time within three years are re-let to any person without obtaining the permission of the Controller or is transferred to any other person, which does not appear to the Controller to be bona fide, Controller may, on the application of the tenant, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him the compensation as the Controller thinks fit. Therefore, there is no complete embargo on the landlord re-letting the premises to a third party, however, before doing the same, the landlord is to take the permission of the Controller. Even otherwise, the said provision can have no effect on the determination of the damages that the landlord would be entitled to during the pendency of the revision petition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RC. REV. 172/2020 & CM 17010/2020
SHRI R K KAINTH THROUGH RAKESH KAINTH,
GUARDIAN Vs SHRI SWADESH KUMAR BHAGI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
Date of Decision: 18.11.2020
Print Page