Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
ANIL DIDWANIA – Appellant
Versus
AMARJIT SINGH – Respondent
RC.REV. 112/2018
For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Kumar, Ms. Manisha, Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Mr. Manan Soni, Mr. Siddhant
For the Respondent: Mr. R. K. Bedi, Mr. Deepak Arora
The court reaffirmed that user charges must reflect prevailing market rates and tenant maintenance issues do not affect rental obligations if premises were in good condition at tenancy inception.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Review petition for revisiting the order on monthly user charges for tenanted premises - The Court finds no merit in the argument regarding the unqualified advocate’s incompetence and assesses the user charges based on market valuations through lease deeds. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 15)
(B) Tenancy Law - Existing rental contracts are determinative of fair user charges, and conditions of tenanted premises are relevant but do not override contractual obligations assuming proper maintenance by the tenant. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The review petition contests the fixed user charges of Rs. 25,000/- per month based on admitted claims of occupancy and the condition of the premises, challenging previously represented submissions.
Findings of Court:
The Court finds the previous order remains justified based on comparative rental analysis, determining that Rs. 25,000/- is reasonable.
Issues: The primary issue was the appropriate amount for user charges for the tenanted commercial premises based on current lease agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that user charges should reflect market rates; maintenance issues cannot excuse payment discrepancies if properties were initially provided in good condition.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review basis and counsel's representation (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court observations on arguments presented (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8) |
O R D E R
% 04.07.2025 REVIEW PET. 19/2023 CM APPL. 2593/2023 (For seeking interim relief by way of stay of the impugned order dated 20.12.2022)
1. This review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 has been filed for review of the order dated 20.12.2022, wherein on the admission of the Petitioner/tenant, the user charges for the commercial premises bearing no. 3/2793, Ground Floor, Ashoka Gali, Hamilton Road, Mori Gate, Delhi [‘tenanted premises’] were fixed at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month payable during the pendency of this petition.
2. The review petition has been filed on the plea that Mr. Varun RC.REV. 112/2018 Page 1 of 6 Maheshwari, Advocate, who appeared on 20.12.2022, is not the counsel on record and was, therefore, not instructed to make the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant. It is stated that Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Advocate is merely a junior associate working with the counsel on record and therefore, his statement should not bind the Petitioner/tenant.
3. While issuing notice in this petition on 19.01.2023, this Court had passed an ad-interim measure directing the Petitioner/tenant to make payment of user charges at Rs. 15,000/- per month.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner/tenant states that the Review Petitioner/tenant has placed on record a lease deed dated 18.01.2018 and a lease deed dated 15.06.2022 to demonstrate the existing rentals in the area during the contemporary period.
4.1. He states that lease deed dated 18.01.2018 is with respect to the premises, which is commercial in nature and as per the said lease deed, the rental amount payable for a similarly placed property is Rs. 52/- per square feet. He states that the lease deed dated 15.06.2022 is for a residential purpose in the same area.
4.2. He states that upon a conjunct reading of the lease deed(s) dated 18.01.2018 and 15.06.2022, it is the submission of the Petitioner/tenant that the commercial rate of rent for a similarly placed property would be Rs. 65 per square feet in the year 2022.
4.3. He states, however, this rate of rent is for properties, which are fit for habitation. He states that the tenanted premises is, however, in a dilapidated condition. He states that the photographs showing the dilapidated condition of the tenanted premises has been placed on record.
4.4. He states that it is correct that the Petitioner/tenant has been RC.REV. 112/2018 Page 2 of 6 occupying the tenanted premises for approximately past 15 years and it would be correct to presume that the said property was handed over in a fit condition to the Petitioner/tenant at the initiation of the tenancy.
4.5. He states that the area of the tenanted premises is 184 square feet. He, therefore, submits that in these facts, the user charges to be fixed in the year
2022 ought to have been Rs. 15,000/- per month and not Rs. 25,000/-.
4.6. He states that the Respondent/landlord has placed on record a lease deed dated 25.02.2021, which pertains to a commercial premises in Ganda Nala Bazar, Hamilton Road, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi-110006. He states that the premises in Ganda Nala Bazar cannot be compared with the neighbourhood of the tenanted premises, which are at the reasonable distance from each other. He states that the neighbourhood in which the tenanted premises is located is not as well connected to main roads; and he relies upon the print out of google map to demonstrate this.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent/landlord states that he has placed on record along with his written synopsis, a copy of the registered lease deed dated 25.02.2021, which shows that for a commercial premises in a similar commercial neighbourhood, the rental rate for a similar premises is Rs. 50,000/- per month.
5.1. He states that Respondent/landlord is therefore, entitled
