Landlords are entitled to user and occupation charges post-eviction decree, and interim protection lapses upon non-payment.

ORDER

% 24.12.2024

1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners appears today and on the first call he submits that he does not have the file. The matter was thereafter passed over at his request and on the second call, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is unable to make any submissions and that the arguing Counsel is not available.

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents draws attention of the Court to the order dated 11.12.2024 to submit that despite interim protection granted to the Petitioner on 30.07.2018, no user and occupation charges are being paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents.

3. The Court had on 11.12.2024 also directed the parties to be physically present. The Petitioner was present in Court on the first call. The son of Respondent No.1 is present in Court alongwith Respondent No.1 today.

4. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 11.12.2024, the Court had directed as follows:

“1. Once again, a request for an adjournment is made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

2. The record shows that a similar request was made by the Petitioner on 29.04.2024 as well as on 14.08.2024.

3. The record also shows that the interim protection was granted to the Petitioner by an Order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. However, no user and occupation charges are being paid in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. reported as (2005) 1 SCC 705 , in which it is held that once an Eviction Order is passed, the tenant is required to pay the use and occupation charges at market rent till the final disposal of the Revision Petition.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner also requests for some time to take instructions as to whether her client is able to pay market rent for the last six years.

5. Let the parties be physically present in the Court on the next date of hearing.”

5. The matter was listed on 20.12.2024 when once again an adjournment request was made by the Petitioner and at his request, the matter has been listed today.

6. As stated above, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner once again submits that he has no instructions and that the arguing Counsel is unavailable. Given the fact that ample opportunity has been given to the Petitioner to make his submissions, and the long lapse of time since interim protection was granted to the Petitioner, the Court deems it appropriate to affix user and occupation charges.

7. The Impugned Order has been passed in respect of premises bearing No.2212, Kuncha Alam Chand Kinari Bazar, New Delhi-110006 [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. Undisputedly, the subject premises are commercial premises on the ground floor in the middle of a market place in Chandni Chowk area in Kinari Bazar, New Delhi.

8. The record shows that the Eviction Petition was filed in the year 2008 by the Petitioner and that despite service on the Petitioner by publication, the leave to defend was not filed on time. The learned Trial Court examined the matter and held that since the Petitioner was served by publication on 08.03.2011 and the leave to defend Application was filed on 04.05.2017, this ground alone entitles the leave to defend Application to be dismissed. However, in addition the learned Trial Court also undertook an examination on the merits of the case and found that no triable issue was raised by the Petitioner/tenant. Subsequently, the Impugned Order was passed allowing the Eviction Petition filed by the Respondents.

9. As stated above, the operation of the Impugned Order was stated by a