IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Alka Sachdeva - Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Gupta - Respondent
CM(M) 664 of 2021
Decided On : 23-12-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction petition filed under drc act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. submission of lease deeds and arguments regarding tenant status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on application of law regarding compensation. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. ratio drawn from atma ram properties case on compensation. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. determining date and rate for occupation charges. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. assessment based on comparatives from lease deeds. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. affirmation of charges and due dates for payment. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. court directions and request for expedited appeal decision. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--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:
| S. NO | ADDRESS | PAGE | SQUARE FEET | SQUARE METER | RENT | PER SQUARE FEET | SUIT PREMISES RENT |
| 1. | A5/4 KRISHNA NAGAR. Front/main road facing just opposite to the suit premises and 10 walking steps away from the tenanted property Photograph annexed on page 21 | ON PAGE 280-285 ANNEXURE-R | 8'X8'=64' SQ.FT | 5.94 SQ.MT | Rs.25,000/- | Rs.390.63 SQ FT. | Rs.25,390/- P.M. |
| 2. | A5/8 KRISHNA NAGAR. Front/main road facing and approx. 50 mtrs. Away from the tenanted premises | ON PAGE 286-292 ANNEXURE-S | 922 SQ.FT | 85.7 SQ.MT | Rs.45,000/- | Rs.48.81 SQ.FT | Rs.3172.65/- P.M. |
| 3. | A8/29 AND A8/3 |
Tenants must compensate landlords for use and occupation of premises at market rates post-eviction decree, irrespective of prior contractual agreements.
The court emphasized the necessity of fixing user and occupation charges that reflect fair market rent as a reasonable compensation for landlords during the pendency of eviction appeals.
Tenant cannot claim himself/herself to be tenant qua the premises in question after passing of eviction order and courts after passing of eviction order can always put the tenant of premises to terms....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenancy terminated with the passing of the eviction order, and the tenants were liable to pay use and occupation charges to reasonably com....
Compensation for mesne profits post-eviction must reflect prevailing market rates rather than prior contractual agreements, mandating substantiated reasoning in the assessment process.
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.