SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J
ABDUL SATTAR & ANR – Appellant
Versus
MASLAH UDDIN – Respondent
CM APPL.-3047/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Bahar U. Barqi, Mr. Maroof Ahmad
For the Respondents: Mr. Himal Akhtar, Mr. Juned Salmani, Ms. Rehana, Mohd. Sheriyaz

Tenants are liable to pay user and occupation charges to landlords during litigation arising from eviction orders.

Headnote:In accordance with the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the court considers the applicability of user charges for premises undergoing eviction proceedings. It establishes that tenants can be directed to pay interim compensation for use and occupation of property during litigation. The ruling addresses both current and past compensation for use of premises in light of delayed eviction. The court concludes the tenant is required to pay a specific rate for use and occupation charges until the petition’s disposal.

1. This is an Application for affixation of user and occupation charges.

2. Pleadings have been completed in the Application.

3. The only contention that is raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants is that user charges are not payable because the subject matter in issue is not under the Delhi Rent Control Act , 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”]. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants is unable to deny that there is an eviction order dated 13.08.2019 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act which has been challenged by the Petitioners/tenants before this Court under the provisions of Section 25-B (8)

of the DRC Act.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 679/2019 Page 1 of 8

3.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants is also unable to deny that this Court by an order dated 29.01.2020 has passed an order directing that the execution of the Impugned Order dated 13.08.2019 shall remain stayed.

This position has continued as is.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord points out that this submission made before this Court qua non-applicability of the DRC Act is made for the first time before this Court.

5. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are without merit. 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 while granting the stay. The Court relying upon the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act , observed that on passing the decree for eviction by a competent court, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises in present and earn the profit if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The Court has explained that because of pendency of the Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed RC.REV. 679/2019 Page 2 of 8

appeal, which may be in continuation of suit, the doctrine of merger does not have effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a later date.

[Emphasis supplied]

5.2 The Supreme Court in Atma Ram case, has laid down that once an order for eviction has been passed against a tenant and the tenant continues in possession of the tenanted premises, such tenant is required to pay use and occupation charges to the landlord at the market rate applicable to “like” premises situated in the vicinity, until the disposal of the Petition impugning such order of eviction.

5.3 It has further been held in the Atma Ram case that this interim compensation is granted based on the discretion of Court in its judicial wisdom, to offset the detrimental effects of prolonged litigation on landlord. The relevant extract reads as follows:

“9. Robust common sense, common knowledge of human affairs and events gained by judicial experience and judicially noticeable facts, over and above the material available on record — all these provide useful inputs as relevant facts for ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top