Determination of fair and reasonable use and occupation charges for commercial premises based on the size, condition, and jural relationship of tenancy between the parties.

Headnote:
Use and Occupation Charges - Commercial Premises - The court allowed the application filed by the landlord for payment of use and occupation charges, determining a fair and reasonable amount of Rs. 50,000 per month to be paid by the tenant to the landlord.
Fact of the Case:

The tenant filed a revision petition to challenge the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the application for grant of leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The operation of the impugned eviction order was stayed, and the landlord filed an application for payment of use and occupation charges.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issue of the tenancy relationship had been decided in favor of the landlord, and considering the size and condition of the premises, determined a fair and reasonable amount of use and occupation charges to be paid by the tenant.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of fair use and occupation charges for the commercial premises and the stay on the operation of the impugned eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the size and condition of the premises, the jural relationship of tenancy between the parties, and the legal position that use and occupation charges cannot be quantified with mathematical precision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, directing the tenant to pay Rs. 50,000 per month as use and occupation charges to the landlord, with strict adherence to payment deadlines, and stayed the operation of the impugned eviction order till the disposal of the revision petition.

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 354/2018 SATISH BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Niyati Kohli, Mr A. Agnihotri and Mr V. Chaudhary, Advs.

versus PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Saurabh Jain, Mr. Abdullah Shahid and Mr. Shouib Khan, Advocates along with Respondent in person CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R

% 05.03.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

CM APPL. 8204/2020 (early hearing)

1. The application has become infructuous, so disposed of.

CM APPL. 38681/2019 (use and occupation charges)

2. This application filed by the respondent/landlord for payment of use and occupation charges came up before the predecessor bench on 30.08.2019 but thereafter, unfortunately the matter could never reach and kept getting adjourned for one or the other reason. Keeping in mind that operation of the impugned eviction order was stayed by the predecessor bench on 20.08.2018 and since then, no use and occupation charges have been fixed till date, I find no reason to adjourn this application any further.

As such I have heard learned counsel for both sides.

3. The present revision petition was filed by the tenant to assail the order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed. As mentioned above, operation of the impugned eviction order was stayed by the predecessor bench vide order dated 20.08.2018.

4. The subject premises are first floor commercial premises bearing no. 4/9 Asaf Ali Road and the same admeasures 1000sq. ft. Along with the application under consideration, the respondent/landlord has placed on record a copy of registered lease deed of neighbouring property bearing no.4/5-B Asaf Ali Road, which is a ground floor commercial premises admeasuring 120sq. ft. and the rate of rent according to the same is Rs. 66,125/- pertaining to the period commencing from 15.12.2021. According to learned counsel for respondent/landlord, going by the rate of rent payable in the comparable property, the use and occupation charges in the present case has to be much higher keeping in mind that the subject premises admeasures 1000sq. ft. while the comparable premises admeasures only 120sq. ft. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant has submitted certain photographs (running into 6 sheets) depicting the condition of the subject premises. Copies of those photographs are supplied to the other side and the same be scanned and made part of the judicial record. According to learned counsel for petitioner/tenant, the fair use and occupation charges in the present case cannot be more than Rs. 6,000/- per month, especially because the jural relationship of tenancy between the parties is challenged.

5. The fact remains that as on date, the issue of jural relationship of tenancy between the parties stands decided by way of a judicial order in favour of the respondent/landlord, which order was stayed by the predecessor bench. It would be significant to note that the order dated 20.08.2018 by which the operation of the impugned eviction order was stayed does not reflect any doubts about the findings in the impugned order qua jural relationship of tenancy between the parties. The respondent/landlord is suffering stay on operation of the impugned eviction order and thereby deprived of fruits of litigation, so certainly is entitled to fair and reasonable use and occupation charges.

6. The legal position is not in dispute to the effect that the use and occupation charges cannot be quantified with mathematical precision and it is an exercise in estimation, though the same must be based on objective criteria brought before the Court by both sides.

7. Considering the overall circumstances as described above including the depiction of the subject premises in the photographs filed today in the backdrop of the comparative size and floor of the su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document