JUDGEMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

CM APPL. 41155/2022 (Fixation of use and occupation charges)

1.The The present application has been filed by the Respondent, Landlord, seeking a direction to the Petitioner, Tenant, to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- per month as use and occupation charges from the date of eviction order i.e., 17.07.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, till the date of actual handing over of the possession of the tenanted premises to the Respondent.

2.Learned counsel for the Respondent relies upon rental amount, specified in the certified copies of two registered lease deeds, for similar sized shops located in the vicinity of the tenanted premises. She states that the use and occupation charges of the tenanted premisesmaybefixedatRs.1,25,000/-permonthbeing commensurate with the market rent.

3.She states that the Tenant is presently paying a meagre sum of Rs.974/- per month towards monthly rent, excluding all the taxes and charges. She states that the execution of the eviction order dated 17.07.2019 has been stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 15.01.2020. She states that with the passing of the eviction order, the tenancy stands terminated and the Tenant is liable to pay market user charges during the pendency of this petition. She relies upon the judgment of this Court in R.K Naith Through Rakesh Kainth, Guardian v. Swadesh Kumar Bhagi & Ors., 275 (2020) DLT 176 .

4.In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the shop premises, which are subject matter of the registered lease deeds filed by the Landlord are situated on a 60 feet wide main road and therefore, have greater commercial viability. In contrast, he states that the tenanted premises is situated on a 16 feet wide lane and therefore, the user charges for the said premises cannot be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-

or Rs.1,25,000/- as stated in the application.

5.He states that however, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, the Tenant is willing to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- per month. He states the market rent cannot be awarded as contended by the Landlord and a reasonable amount should by fixed by the Court considering that the Tenant has filed the present revision petition in exercise of her statutory right under Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. , (2005) 1 SCC 705, to contend that the user charges determined by this Court should be a reasonable amount in context of the rate of rent paid prior to passing of the eviction order.

6.He also relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Another v. Super Max International Private Limited and Others : (2009) 9 SCC 772 to contend that the Tenant should be permitted to deposit the user charges with the Registry of this Court and there should be no direction to make payment to the Landlord.

7.In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Respondent states that both the submissions of the Tenant are contrary to the directions contained at paragraph 19 of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra). She further, states that the shop premises which are subject matter of the two registered lease deeds are located at a distance of 200 sq. yards from the tenanted premises and therefore the rent reserved therein is duly applicable.

8.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings in the application.

9.The shop premises which are subject matter of the said two lease deeds are located at Hauz Qazi, Chawri Bazar, Delhi – 110006.

9.1.The first lease deed annexed with the application is with respect to a shop admeasuring 24.86 sq. metre (267.5 sq. feet) and it is for the period of 36 months from 10.07.2018 till 09.07.2021. The rental reserved under the said lease deed is Rs.1,50,000/- per month for first 12 months, with an enhancement clause of 5% per annum after the expiry of one year.

9.2.The second lease deed i