Eviction allowed for bona fide business expansion despite other premises if not reasonably suitable; use and occupation charges enhanced to market rate using credible comparables during stay.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.

CMP No. 15981 of 2024

1. The present application has been filed on 2nd August, 2024. The same has been filed for enhancement of the use and occupation charges in the case at hand. Admittedly, eviction by the Rent Controller in the case at hand had taken place on 15.12.2017. Subsequent thereto, the landlord/tenant relationship inter se the parties stood cancelled. The landlord was entitled to use and occupation charges as operation, execution of the judgment passed by the Rent Controller had been stayed during the pendency of the appeal preferred before the 1st Appellate Court by the tenant/present petitioner.

2. Use and occupation charges by the 1st Appellate Court, during the pendency of the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority by the tenant, had been determined on the 4th day of July, 2018. For the purpose of determination of use and occupation charges by the 1st Appellate Court, a lease deed qua shop bearing No. 6 on the Mall Road level, measuring 502 sq. feet (48.33 sq. meters), owned by the wife of the present petitioner/tenant/non-applicant, executed on 18.1.2017, was used as the basis for determining the use and occupation charges. The same was fixed at Rs. 597.60 per sq. foot. The area of the tenanted premises in the case at hand occupied by the non-applicant/tenant was taken as 275 sq. feet, and hence a sum of Rs. 1,64,340 per month (275 × 597.60) was fixed as use and occupation charges. The same was admittedly assailed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court by both the parties. The landlord sought enhancement, whereas the tenant, to the contrary, sought a decrease in the use and occupation charges. Both the revision petitions, vide a common order dated 2.1.2019, were dismissed, and the order passed by the first appellate Court dated 4.7.2018 fixing the use and occupation charges was upheld.

3. Post dismissal of the appeal filed before the first appellate Court on 29.12.2023, the present revision petition was preferred before this Court on 3.4.2024. Vide order dated 14.5.2024, the execution proceedings in the case at hand filed by the landlord were kept in abeyance. As has already been stated supra, use and occupation charges in the case at hand was determined on 4.7.2018, taking into account a lease deed entered into by the wife of the non-applicant qua property owned by her on the Mall Road, which was executed on 18.1.2017.

4. By virtue of the present application, the applicants/landlords submit that rentals in the vicinity of the demised premises have increased. In order to demonstrate the same, the applicants/landlords have placed on record a leave and licence agreement dated 14.3.2023 entered into with respect to a shop situated on the Mall Road in the vicinity of the demised premises. The area of the shop qua which the leave and licence agreement pertains is 300 sq. feet. Licence fee payable with respect to the same is Rs. 3 lacs per month plus GST. Hence, according to the applicants/landlords, the per square foot rate in terms of the leave and licence agreement dated 14.3.2023 placed on record is Rs. 1000/-. To show that the licence fee determined is being paid, relevant bank record has been placed on record.

5. Per contra, the tenant/non-applicant has placed on record supplementary agreements entered into between the tenant and his wife qua s