The tenant must compensate the landlord for the loss suffered due to the delay in execution of the eviction order, and the use and occupation charges need not be the same as the contractual rate of rent.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 23rd September, 2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCT Appeal No. 01/2021 to the extent that the use and occupation charges have been fixed @ Rs.270/- per month.

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows:

2.1 The eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) was filed on behalf of the petitioner landlord on 15th April, 2015 in respect of Shop C forming part of property bearing No.A-4/4, Ground Floor, Main Road, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 (suit property) in which respondents No.2 to 4 were respondents/tenants, however, respondent No.1 was not a party.

2.2 On 26th September, 2019, the eviction petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was allowed by the Rent Controller and eviction order was passed against the respondents No.2 to 4.

2.3 On 19th July, 2020, the petitioner filed an execution petition before the Rent Controller.

2.4 The said petition was opposed in August, 2020 by the respondent No.1 by filing an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2.5 On 16th September, 2020, the respondent No.1 filed his objections to the execution petition.

2.6 Vide order dated 1st February, 2021, the Executing Court was pleased to dismiss the objections filed on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2.7 Against the said dismissal, on 11th February, 2021, an appeal was filed on behalf of respondent No.1 before the RCT.

2.8 On 9th March, 2021 the RCT stated that the petitioner shall not take coercive steps in the execution petition.

2.9 On 12th March, 2021, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking use and occupation charges from the respondents, which was opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply.

2.10 Vide the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2021, the aforesaid application was disposed of by the RCT and use and occupation charges were granted at the contractual rate of Rs.270/- per month from the date of filing of the eviction petition.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that along with application under Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioner had filed two lease deeds in respect of the properties located in the neighbouring area.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record in this Court, three lease deeds dated 3rd September, 2011, 26th April, 2019 and 3rd August, 2018 in respect of shops no. A5/4, A5/8, A8/29, and A8/30 located in the same area and adjacent/opposite to the suit property. The tabular chart of the said lease deeds to ascertain the prevailing market rate of rent as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner is as follows:

5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 states that since the respondent No.1 was never recognized as a tenant by the petitioner and was not even made a party in the eviction petition, the judgment in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705, would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as that was a case in which landlord and tenant relationship was admitted. Even if use and occupation charges were