A property owner retains a right to claim rent for the duration that possession is unlawfully held by the tenant, even post-vacation notice.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal No.10-3-291/2, admeasuring 465 square yards situated at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad and his ownership and title over the said property are admitted and undisputed by respondents. It is stated, on 23.06.2018, Respondent No.2, acting on behalf of Respondent No.3, entered into a valid and subsisting lease agreement with Petitioner for use and occupation of the said premises for a period of three years, on a monthly rent of Rs.3,28,020/-. It is further stated, on expiry of initial lease period, respondents sought continuation of lease and accordingly, on 08.09.2022, lease was extended for a further period of three years on the same terms and conditions. Under the extended lease, rent was fixed at Rs.18/- per square foot, and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties continued without any dispute.

1.1. It is stated, while lease was subsisting, Respondent No.2 issued notice dated 15.09.2023, informing Petitioner that premises would be vacated shortly on emergency grounds. The said notice did not specify any definite date for vacating the premises or for handing over possession of the building to the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 03.01.2024, Respondent No.3 informed that building had been vacated on 18.12.2023. However, according to Petitioner, despite such intimation, respondents continued to retain possession and control over the subject premises even after 18.12.2023, as the keys were not handed over and the building was not restored to him for use or occupation. In view of the continued control of respondents over the premises, Petitioner addressed a detailed letter dated 22.01.2024 to Respondent No.2, pointing out that under Clause 12 of the lease agreement, respondents were obligated to assess and compensate for damages caused to the building at the time of vacating the premises.

1.2. Petitioner also drew attention to Clause 5 of the lease agreement, under which respondents were required to clear all arrears relating to electricity consumption and water charges up to the date of delivery of possession. In the said letter, Petitioner specifically informed Respondent No.2 that, based on the assessment and quotation furnished by a civil engineer, the damages caused to the building were quantified at Rs.28,92,089/-. It is asserted, unless damages were assessed and settled in accordance with the lease conditions, he could not safely or lawfully take back possession of the premises.

1.3. It is also stated, despite repeated requests and follow-ups, respondents delayed the process of inspection and assessment of damages. Ultimately, Respondents 2 and 3 conducted inspection of the premises on 16.03.2024 and only thereafter the actual and physical possession of the building was delivered to Petitioner on 19.03.2024. Delivery of possession on the said date is evidenced by Letter dated 19.03.2024. Through proceedings dated 15.01.2025, Respondent No.2 directed payment of Rs.8,93,003/-towards damages to the building, disputing and not accepting Petitioner's actual claim of Rs.28,92,089/-. The said amount was released only after prolonged delay and after the respondents completed the assessment process.

1.4. Petitioner states that on 24.04.2024, he formally requested Respondent No.2 to release rents payable for the period from December 2023 to March 2024, during which period the premises admittedly remained under the control of respondents. In the same representation, he also requested clearance of arrears towards electricity charges, water charges and damages in accordance with the lease agreement. Respondent No.2 cleared water charges amounting to Rs.1,90,911/- through proceedings dated 27.08.2024 and electricity consumption charges amounting to Rs.13,012/- for the months of February and March 2024 through proceedings dated 23.08.2024. By proceedings dated 05.11.2024, Respondent No.2 categorically accepted its liabilit