The main legal point established is the requirement for a tenant to pay use and occupation charges at the market rate of similar premises till the final disposal of the petition, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.

CM Appl. 40083/2019[Application seeking directions to pay use and occupation charges]

1. This is an Application filed by the Respondent/landlord seeking directions to the Petitioner/tenant to pay use and occupation charges of the premises i.e., the basement under the shops on the ground floor of property bearing no. 22F, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007, ad-measuring area 340 sq. ft. [hereinafter referred to as the "demised premises"] from the date of the Eviction order dated 20.09.2018 [hereinafter referred to as "Eviction Order"] till the Revision Petition is finally decided by this Court.

1.1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/landlord submits that the Petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the demised premises for many years.

2. The execution of the Eviction Order was stayed by this Court on 19.03.2019.

3. The present Application was filed on 03.08.2019 and the Notice in the Application was issued on 13.03.2020. On 13.03.2020, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant had sought time to file a Reply to the present Application. The Reply has not been filed despite the last opportunity granted by this Court on 25.01.2023.

4. On 01.05.2023, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant, sought more time to file a Reply to the present Application.

4.1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/landlord has opposed the grant of any further time to file the Reply, as no Reply has been filed for almost 4 years. He further submits that the Petitioner/tenant has obtained Interim Orders from this Court and thereafter no use and occupation charges are being paid by the Petitioner/tenant.

4.2. A perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner/tenant had sought time to file a Reply on several occasions including 13.03.2020 and 25.01.2023. In these circumstances, the Orders in this Application were reserved, and the Parties were given leave to file their respective written submissions.

5. Both Parties have since filed their written submissions.

6. I have heard learned Counsels for the Parties and have perused the record.

7. The Supreme Court in a recent Judgment titled Martin and Harris Private Limited and Another v. Rajendra Mehta and Others, (2022) 8 SCC 527, has upheld the law laid down in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 case that once an Eviction Order has been passed, the tenant is required to pay the use and occupation charges at market rate of like premises till the final disposal of the Petition. It has been held however that, the direction to pay mesne profits or compensation will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, including on location of the property whether it is in a village, city, or metropolitan area as well as its nature whether it is a commercial or residential area and the standard rate of rent serving as guiding factors in the facts of each case.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent/landlord, with this Application has placed on record three registered lease deeds of the "like premises" with the following details:

(i) Lease Deed-07.02.2019

(ii) Lease Deed-04.12.2018

(iii) Lease Deed-29.11.2018

8.1. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord submits that similarly situated shops/properties in the vicinity of the demised premises are being let out at a monthly rent which ranges between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- in similar locations in Kamla Nagar, Delhi.

9. Lea