Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Anu Rajotia And Another – Appellant
Versus
Rita Allahabadi – Respondent
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
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
