The court emphasized that an application for interim relief should be filed within a reasonable time after the Appeal is admitted and stay is granted to the execution of the eviction decree.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Interim Application has been filed by Respondent/Landlord seeking a relief of monthly compensation payable @ Rs.70,000/- from passing of the Trial Court decree, by the Tenant, as per the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties V/s. Federal Motors reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705.

Legal Frame Work :

2. It is necessary first to examine the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Atma Ram Properties (Supra).

2.1. In the said judgment Supreme Court held that while passing an order of stay to eviction decree, the Appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would be reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by grant of stay order. In the said proceedings, eviction was sought on the ground of subletting. The decree of eviction was passed. In an Appeal preferred under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Rent Control Tribunal directed the eviction to remain stayed but subject to the condition that the respondent shall deposit in the Court Rs.15,000/- p.m., in addition to the contractual rent which may be directly paid to the Appellant. Paragraph No.19 of the said judgment reads 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 decree-holder 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.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

2.2. Hence, in the judgment of Atma Ram Properties (Supra) Supreme Court, held that if a tenant suffers a decree of eviction, Appellate Court while granting stay to eviction decree, can put the tenant on reasonable terms, to compensate the decree holder for loss suffered by delay in execution of decree due to stay granted. The Court further held that after passing of eviction decree, in Appeal if stay to eviction decree is sought, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profit or compensation for occupation of premises from the date of decree, at the same rate at which Landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if tenant had vacated.

2.3. I would like to point out here that in Atma Ram Properties (supra), the eviction decree was passed on 19 March 2001. In an Appeal preferred by tenant, the decree of eviction was stayed on 12 April 2001, subject to condition that the tenant shall deposit in the Court Rs.15,000/- p.m. in addition to contractual rent. Hence, the condition to deposit the market rent was imposed in less than one month from passing of eviction decree.

3. Correspondingly, in the matter of Sulochana Jadhav Vs. Jogindersingh Amarsingh (Writ Petition No. 5658 of 2004), in Civil Application No. 688 of 2009, this Court by its order dated 4 March 2010, reje