IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Anu Rajotia & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Rita Allahabadi - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 251 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 39922 of 2021
Decided On : 20-01-2022
appellant - property dispute - The court directed the appellant to deposit monthly use and occupation charges and clarified that the appellant's restriction from creating third party rights on the property will continue until the disposal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested an order restraining them from creating third party rights on a property and directing them to deposit monthly use and occupation charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the appellant to deposit monthly use and occupation charges and clarified that the restriction on creating third party rights will continue until the disposal of the suit.
Issues: Dispute over property ownership and use, application of Order XII Rule 6, and the appellant's obligation to deposit use and occupation charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant's claim of ownership did not warrant a change in the order, and directed the appellant to deposit monthly use and occupation charges.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with a direction for the appellant to deposit monthly use and occupation charges and clarified that the restriction on creating third party rights will continue until the disposal of the suit.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. appellant impugns order dated 19.02.2021, whereby the trial court has restrained the respondent from creating any third party rights in suit property, parting with possession of the same or raising any unauthorized construction. appellant further impugns order dated 04.09.2021, whereby appellant has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as use and occupation charges with effect from 01.02.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though appellant was inducted as a tenant but appellant is now an owner of the subject property as appellant had paid the entire sale consideration to the erstwhile owner in the year 2006 and agreement to sell etc. was executed in his favour.
4. He, however, without prejudice submits that appellant shall deposit with the trial court, the of use and occupation charges @ Rs.5500/- per month commencing from 01.12.2016 i.e., three years preceding the date of the filing of the suit and continue to deposit the same till the disposal of the suit at the said rate.
5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that arguments on application under Order XII Rule 6 have been heard and judgment reserved.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to deposit with the trial court, use and occupation charges @ Rs.5500/- per month commencing from 01.12.2016 till date. appellant shall continue to deposit use and occupation charges month to month with the trial court @ Rs.5500/- per month. The amount be deposited on or before 10th day of each English calendar month.
7. The arrears be cleared by the appellant in three equal monthly installments. The first installment being paid within two weeks from today.
8. In view of the above, order dated 04.09.2021 is modified to the above extent. However, order dated 19.02.2021, whereby the appellant has been restrained from creating any third party rights, parting with possession or raising any unauthorized construction upon the subject property does warrant any inference. The same shall continue to operate till the disposal of the suit.
9. It is clarified that deposit of the amount shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit. It is also clarified that the observations on merit in the impugned orders would be treated as prima facie and not conclusive findings of facts.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through e-mail by the Court Master.
The court upheld the restriction on creating third party rights on the property and directed the appellant to deposit monthly use and occupation charges.
An appellant, initially a tenant, can assert ownership rights upon proving full payment; however, restrictions on property actions must remain until the suit's resolution, while financial obligations....
The court highlighted the discretion of the court to issue directions for deposit of a reasonable amount under Order XV-A to safeguard the rights of the property owner and ensure compensation for the....
The Court emphasized that an order under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC and/or Order XV-A CPC is an interim measure to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff/owner, and should be carefully passed to protect t....
The High Court clarified the necessity for fresh determination of market rates for occupation charges, emphasizing the lack of co-ownership by the respondent and the error in previous appellate findi....
The court established that in rent revision petitions, interim use and occupation charges for demised premises may be determined by balancing comparable market lease data with the parties' financial ....
The court clarified the limited extent of the restraint on the appellants and emphasized that the factual observations and findings in the impugned order shall not have a bearing on the final disposa....
The court clarified that an injunction cannot stand if the party seeking it is not presently in possession of the property.
The court's decision was based on the agreed directions presented by the parties' counsels, highlighting the importance of mutual agreement in disposing of the appeal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.