The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of use and occupation charges and the applicability of previous judgments in deciding the case.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Since both these review petitions are directed against the same order passed by the learned appellate authority on 2.11.2016, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.

2. The parties for the sake of convenience and for no other purpose, lest it causes any prejudice to either of the parties, shall be referred to as the landlords and tenants.

3. The landlords are the owners of Shop No. 14, Middle Bazaar, Shimla, measuring 313 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as the premises in question) as also one floor above the same bearing Municipal No. 14/1, Middle Bazaar, Shimla. They in the year 2004, filed an eviction petition against the tenants on the ground that the tenants had sublet the premises in question to respondent No. 7 Shri Kanwar Ali without the written permission or consent of the landlords. This petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 26.8.2016 passed in eviction petition No. 19-2 of 15/04.

4. The order of eviction was assailed by the tenant/respondent No. 1 by filing an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was registered as Rent Petition No. 14-S/13(b) of 2016. The appeal was accompanied by an application for stay being miscellaneous application No. 58-S/6 of 2016.

5. The landlords filed reply to the application claiming therein mesne profits on the basis of an agreement executed by Bata India Ltd. in their favour with respect of premises known as 14/1, Middle Bazaar, Shimla, which premises as observed above are situate just above the premises in question. Alongwith the agreement an affidavit of Harnam Singh, Manager of the Shimla Branch of Bata Shoe shop was also filed and it was averred that both these documents clearly establish that the premises 14/1, Middle Bazaar had been let out by the petitioner/landlord No. 2 to Bata India @ Rs. 295.56 paise per sq. ft. with a provision for an increase of rental. Based upon the aforesaid agreement and affidavit, It was averred that if it all the stay is to be granted in favour of the tenant/respondent No. 1, he should be ordered to pay the current use and occupation charges @ Rs. 313.54 paise per sq. ft.

6. The learned appellate authority vide impugned order dated 2.11.2016 granted stay qua the operation and enforcement of the eviction order dated 26.8.2016 on the condition that the tenants would pay the use and occupation charges @ Rs.12,000/- per month to be paid from 1st September, 2016 onwards.

7. It is against this order that both the parties have filed their respective revision petitions.

8. The landlords would argue that once there was sufficient material placed before the appellate authority then it had no option other than to consider the same and thereafter determine the use and occupation charges which in this case have been proved to be @ Rs. 313.54 paise per sq. ft. It is further argued that as per the settled law the mesne profit or use and occupation charges have to be paid from the date of eviction i.e. 26.8.2016 and could not have ordered to be paid from a later date i.e. 1.9.2016 onwards.

9. On the other hand, the tenant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that he is only running a small tailoring shop and therefore, could not be compelled to pay use and occupation charges at an exorbitant rate of Rs.12,000/- per month more particularly when the adjoining shops in the vicinity had been rented out only on a meager rent of Rs. 2000/- to Rs.3000/- per month.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

10. Notably, the learned appellate authority in the impugned order has though made a reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 and judgment rendered by this High Court in case Padam Devi and another vs. Karam Chand and ors. 2010 (Supp) Him L.R. 2052 and another as also the judgment rendere