ORDER :

1. This is an application filed by the landlord who is respondent in the Special Leave Petition praying that the non-applicant tenant is merely paying Rs. 175/- per month which was fixed decades ago, is grossly disproportionate to the market rent prevailing in the said area.

2. The applicant-landlord had filed an application for eviction of the non- applicant - tenant under Section 14(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. The said eviction suit was decreed by the learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 18th May, 2010.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the non-applicant - tenant filed a Revision Petition before the Delhi High Court. The tenant prayed for stay of execution of the eviction decree against him. When the said stay application came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 24th August, 2011, the applicant-landlord pointed out that the market rent of the suit property would be around Rs. 50,000/- per month and therefore, it was prayed that the petitioner- tenant be directed to pay the market rent from the date of the eviction decree in view of the judgment of this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2005)1 SCC 705.

4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the petitioner-tenant to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month with effect from 18th May, 2010 during the pendency of the Revision Petition noticing the fact that the suit property was situated in a prime commercial area of Delhi. The arrears were directed to be paid within a period of one month. The order of the High Court in the aforesaid petition is set out as under :-

"RC. REV. 226/2010

Today counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner will pursue this petition on merits. In view of this, counsel for both the parties submit that revision petition can be fixed for final hearing on some actual date. Accordingly list this revision petition for final hearing in the category of 'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters' on 15th December, 2011.

CM APPL. 17100/2010

Learned senior counsel for the respondent-landlord says that as a condition for stay of execution of the impugned eviction order, if at all this Court is inclined to grant that relief the petitioner-tenant is directed to pay charges for use and occupation of the tenanted premises at the present market rate keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2005)1 SCC 705. He also says that the present day market rent of the two shops in question would be around Rs. 50,000 per month. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant while not disputing that he is not liable to pay charges for use and occupation over and above the agreed contractual rent says that the market rent of two shops would not be more than 10,000 per month.

Without going into detailed enquiry as to what would be the recent rent of the premises in question, which are stated to be in Qutab Road, a prime commercial area these days in Delhi, I direct the petitioner to pay to the respondent- landlord charges for use and occupation Rs. 25,000 per month from the date of passing of the impugned eviction order till the disposal of this petition. This would be a condition of stay of dispossession of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question. The arrears shall be cleared within a month and from September, 2011 onwards the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent on or before 7th of each month. In case of default, the petitioner shall become liable to be evicted forthwith. The amounts paid by the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the revision petition. This application stands disposed of accordingly."

5. The non-applicant - tenant filed a Review Petition under Order 48 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court itself against the aforesaid order dated 24th August, 2011 being Review Petition No. 528 of 2011. In the said Review Petition, t