Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, ACJ.
P.s. Bakshi - Appellant
Versus
Eih Associated Hotels Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Revisions No. 165 of 2017
Decided On : 01-03-2018
Dheeraj K. Vashista, Advocate, for the Appellant/Tenant; R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Arjun Lall, Advocate, for the Respondent/Landlord
The main legal point established is the acceptance of the tenant's undertaking and the determination of use and occupation charges based on compliance with the undertaking.
Headnote:
H. P. Urban Rent Control Act - Landlord and Tenant Dispute - Section 24(5) - Act Section List: H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, Section 24(5), Civil Revision No. 189 of 2015, Civil Revision No. 79 of 2017 - The court accepted the tenant's undertaking to hand over the premises and determined the use and occupation charges based on settled legal positions and previous court decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord and tenant filed petitions under Section 24(5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, challenging an order directing the tenant to deposit use and occupation charges. The parties later resolved the dispute, with the tenant agreeing to hand over the premises by a specified date.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the tenant's undertaking and allowed her to hand over the premises by the agreed date. It also determined the use and occupation charges based on the tenant's compliance with the undertaking.
Issues: The issues were (a) consequences if the tenant fails to hand over the premises by the specified date, and (b) the amount of use and occupation charges if the tenant breaches the undertaking.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's undertaking was accepted and consequences for breach were clear. It determined the use and occupation charges based on settled legal positions and previous court decisions.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions, accepting the tenant's undertaking and determining the use and occupation charges based on compliance with the undertaking.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Karol, A. C. J. - M/S EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) and Mrs. Neema Bakshi (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) have filed the instant petitions, under the provisions of Section 24(5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The landlord is the owner of demised premises, i. e. Flats No. 229, 230, 231, 232 and Quarter No. 12 of Block No. 8 of the Cecil Hotel State, Chaura Maidan, Shimla. Undoubtely, the said premises were let out to the tenant.
3. Both the landlord and the tenant are aggrieved of order dated 6. 7. 2017, passed by the Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Rent Applications No. 98-S/6 of 2017 & 107-S/6 of 2017 (in Rent Appeal No. 9-S/13(b) of 2017), subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings, whereby the tenant stands directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 24,000/- per month as use and occupation charges, w. e. f. 31. 3. 2017.
4. Before this Court, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. The tenant has agreed to hand over the entire rented accommodation, consisting of six rooms, three bath rooms, one kitchen in Cecil Hotel Annexe; one Servant Quarter No. 12 in Block No. 8, Cecil Hotel Estate, Chaura Maidan, Shimla. This she shall do so on or before 31. 3. 2019. Undertaking, by way of affidavit, to this effect is taken on record.
5. This Court, in terms of the present order, accepts the undertaking of the tenant and allows her to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said demised premises to the landlord on or before 31. 3. 2019.
6. Further, the tenant undertakes not to sublet or part with the possession or transfer rights, if any, in the demised premises in favour of third party. The tenancy stands extinguished and as such, is not heritable, nor the legal heirs have any right over the same.
7. In terms of the undertaking, the landlord and the tenant have agreed for payment of a sum of Rs. 24,000/- per month as use and occupation charges, w. e. f. 1. 4. 2017. A sum of Rs. 2,88,000/-, as use and occupation charges, for the period 1. 4. 2017 to 31. 3. 2018 has been agreed to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, within a period of four weeks from today. This she shall do through electronic transfer, directly into the bank account of the landlord, particulars whereof shall be supplied by the learned counsel for the landlord to the learned counsel for the tenant. In the same manner, the tenant shall continue to pay use and occupation charges, w. e. f. 1. 4. 2018 till the time the premises are occupied by her, i. e. prior to 31. 3. 2019.
8. However, the matter does not end here. The issues, which require adjudication, are (a) as to what would happen if the tenant fails to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord, in terms of her undertaking, on or before 31. 3. 2019; (b) the amount, which the tenant would be liable to pay, as use and occupation charges, in the event of her not handing over such possession as per her undertaking.
9. Answer to the first issue is simple and clear. The tenant has furnished an undertaking, which stands accepted by the Court. She has been made aware of the consequences of breach thereof, including initiation of proceedings for having committed contempt of court.
10. Insofar as the other issue is concerned, it is mutually agreed that till and so long the tenant abides by the undertaking, the amount of use and occupation charges would be Rs. 24,000/- per month. This Court is of the considered view that only in the event of the tenant not abiding by the same, would she be liable to pay use and occupation charges of higher amount to be determined, in terms of the settled position of law, more so in terms of orders passed with respect to other premises of the landlord, occupied by similarly situated tenants/persons.
11. This Court in Civil Revision No. 189 of 2015, titled as Kunta Devi v. EIH Associated Hotels Lt
