The tenant must compensate the landlords for the loss occasioned by the stay granted by the Court on the execution of the eviction order, and the best indicator for fixing the compensation payable by the tenant to the landlord would be the lease deeds of similar premises situated in the same locality.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - CM No.22826/2021 (for fixing user & occupation charges) in CM(M) 196/2021

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 (landlords) for fixing the user and occupation charges in respect of the rented premises, Shop No.5179-A ad measuring 843 square feet (sq. ft.) located at Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar.

2. The facts relevant for deciding the present application are set out hereinafter. Shop No.5179-A (demised premises) was let out to the petitioner (tenant) at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- vide lease deed dated 20th July, 1990. On 2nd April, 1996, the landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). The Additional Rent Controller (ARC), vide judgment dated 23rd May, 2012, allowed the said eviction petition and the matter was put up for consideration of grant of the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act to the tenant. The ARC vide order dated 28th July, 2012 granted the benefit of Section 14(2) to the tenant. Both the landlords as well as the tenant filed appeals under Section 38 of the Act before the Rent Control Tribunal (Tribunal); the landlords, against the order dated 28th July, 2012, and the tenant, against the judgment dated 23rd May, 2012.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 13th February, 2020 passed by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the landlords against the benefit granted under Section 14(2) of the Act to the tenant was allowed, and eviction order was passed against the tenant in respect of the demised premises. The appeal filed by the tenants against the judgment passed by the ARC on 23rd May, 2012 was dismissed.

4. The said judgment of the Tribunal has been challenged by the tenant by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide order dated 5th March, 2021, while issuing notice in the petition, this Court granted stay on the operation of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. The present application for fixation of user and occupation charges was filed by the landlords in July, 2021.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the landlords that the demised premises are located on the main road of a busy commercial market of Old Delhi. In support of their application, the landlords have placed on record lease deeds dated 1st June, 2018, 6th December, 2019 and 25th October, 2018 in respect of shops no.5185-86, 5184 and 5579 located in the same area and adjacent/opposite to the demised premises. The aforesaid three shops, ad measuring 2550 sq. ft., 1200 sq. ft. and 127.62 sq. ft. have been let out at monthly rental of Rs.4,50,000/- per month, Rs.3,20,000/- per month and Rs.32,000/- per month respectively. Learned counsel for the landlords submits that taking into account the aforesaid rentals, the per sq. ft. rentals of the aforesaid shops work out as follows:

Sl. No.

Property No.

Current Rentals

1.

Property bearing No.5185-86

Rs.203/- per Sq. Ft.

2.

Property bearing No.5184

Rs.267/- per Sq. Ft.

3.

Property bearing No.5579

Rs.251/- per Sq. Ft.

6. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the landlords submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705. In terms of paragraph 19 of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the applicants are entitled to reasonable rent with effect from the date the decree was passed, and in the present case, the eviction decree was passed on 13th February, 2020 by the Tribunal. Mr. Gupta has also relied on the judgment in Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. And Ors. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt) and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 178 to contend that the doctrine of merger in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in the present case.

7. Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant contends that 1/3rd of the demised property has been sold by one of the co-