Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 319
$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 14.02.2025 + RC.REV. 157/2022 DARSHANA BHOLA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia and Ms. Hina Rajput, Advs. with Petitioner No. 3.
versus SMT. POONAM SAXENA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Ms.
Vandana Sharma, Mr. Varun Sharma, Ms. Yogita with Ms. Poonam, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.
Mr. Manu Sishodia and Ms. Hina Rajput, Advs. with Petitioner No. 3; Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Ms. Vandana Sharma, Mr. Varun Sharma, Ms. Yogita with Ms. Poonam, Advs.
Tenants must pay user and occupation charges during eviction appeals, as established by the Delhi Rent Control Act and relevant case law.
Headnote:
(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 3(c) - Eviction proceedings - The landlord-tenant relationship is not under challenge; the tenants contest the maintainability of the eviction petition based on rental amount - The landlord's bona fide need for the premises is established - Tenants failed to prove availability of alternate accommodation - The court emphasizes the need for tenants to pay user and occupation charges during the pendency of eviction proceedings. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Compensation for Delay - The court reiterates that tenants seeking a stay on eviction orders must provide compensation to landlords for delays, as established in case law - The court has discretion to determine reasonable compensation based on market rates. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent seeks vacation of stay on eviction order; the Petitioners argue that the rental amount makes the eviction petition non-maintainable under the Delhi Rent Control Act, while the Respondent claims a bona fide need for the premises. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the tenants have not paid user and occupation charges and dismisses the application for continued stay, allowing the landlord to pursue recovery of possession and charges. (Paras 7, 8)
Issues: The main issues include the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the eviction petition and the necessity for tenants to pay user and occupation charges during the appeal process. (Paras 3, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that tenants must pay user and occupation charges to landlords during the appeal process, emphasizing the need for compensation for delays in eviction proceedings. (Paras 6.1, 6.2)
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
CM Appl. 25773/2024 [Seeking vacation of stay]
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Respondent seeking vacation of stay.
2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 14.07.2022 had directed that the execution of the Impugned Order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. This position has continued as is, however no user and occupation charges are being paid by the Petitioners/tenants.
3. This Court by its order dated 03.02.2025 after examining the issues as raised in the present Petition had passed the following directions:
“3. So far as concerns the landlord-tenant relationship and the ownership of the subject premises, the same are not under challenge. The only challenge as is raised by the Petitioners/tenants is that the rental for the subject premises is Rs.15,000/- per month and thus relying on the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it is contended that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present Petition and hence the Eviction Petition was not maintainable.
3.1 On the aspect of bona fide need, as is set out in the Eviction Petition, the same is for the residential requirement of the Respondent/landlord herself and her family.
3.2 On the aspect of availability of alternate suitable accommodation, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants submits that there is an infirmity with the Impugned Order. It is the contention of the Petitioners/tenants that there are alternate suitable accommodations available with the Respondent/landlord which can be utilized for the bona fide need. It is averred that the property no.3045, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “property no.3045”] in which the Respondent/landlord is currently residing is owned by the Respondent/landlord and her family and is not a tenanted property. Further, a government accommodation is also available with the Respondent/landlord.
4. The learned Trial Court relying on the record produced by PW2, official from MCD has held that no government accommodation is available with the Respondent/landlord. It was further held that Petitioners/tenants have failed to prove on record that property no. 3045 is owned by the Respondent/landlord or her family members.”
3.1 This Court had thereafter directed the parties to file their appropriate documents in support of their respective contentions qua user and occupation charges.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions from Petitioner No. 3, submits that the Petitioners are not in a position to pay any user and occupation charges. He further submits that he requires four months additional time to vacate the subject premises.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Respondent is a widowed lady (who remains physically present before the Court on every hearing) and she herself is residing in a rented accommodation where she is paying the rental of Rs. 20,000/- per month since she has no other accommodation, except the tenanted premises.
6. In matters wherein a tenant endeavours to seek a stay on an eviction order, it is deemed equitable, and reasonable that said tenant be directed by the High Court to provide compensation to the landlord. This compensation serves to counter potential adverse effects suffered by the landlord due to the delay or suspension of the eviction order. This view is articulated by Supreme Court in Martin & Harris Private Limited and Another v. Rajendra Mehta and Others, [(2022) 8 SCC 527] while relying on the Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., [(2005) 1 SCC 705] case and reads as follows:
“17. In Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. [Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705], this Court held that the appellate court does have jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in its opinion be reasonable to compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree whi
