$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 266/2024 & CM APPL. 57452-53/2024, 49115/2025 NOORE HASSAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Biswajit Das, Mr. Deepak Kumar & Ms. Neha Yadav, Advs.

versus VIKRAM TULI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sachdeva, Ms.

Rukban Tyagi & Mr. Ashish Garg, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 49115/2025

2. The present application filed on behalf of the respondent- landlord/applicant under Section 151 of the CPC seeks the following prayers:-

“1. Fix Use and Occupation charges with respect to the tenanted shop at a rate Rs.88,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Eight Thousand Only) per month w.e.f. from 18.11.2024 till the disposal of the present petition, and direct the Petitioner to the pay the charges to the Respondent. And/Or;

ii. Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be passed in favour of the Respondent and against the Petitioner.”

3. The present application is supported by certain lease agreements and photographs, demonstrating the current market rate of similarly situated properties and the subject location of the tenanted shop and other such properties, respectively.

4. Reply to the present application has been filed by the petitioner/tenant/non-applicant. In the said reply, it is primarily contended that vide order dated 22.04.2025, the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court stayed the execution proceedings qua the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2024 after noting the contentions on behalf of the petitioner and giving a prima facie finding. The order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Predecessor Bench reads as under: -

“By way of the present petitions filed under section 25-B(8)

of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, the petitioners impugn judgment dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby eviction orders have been passed against the petitioners.

2. The court has heard Mr. Biswajit Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sachdeva, learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the learned Rent Controller has directed eviction of the petitioners after granting leave-to-defend in these matters.

3. On a preliminary hearing of the matters, it is unclear as to how the learned Rent Controller has decided on the issue of landlord- tenant relationship between the parties. This aspect requires further consideration.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sachdeva, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent; accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply.

6. Let reply be filed within 02 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 01 week thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.

7. For the above purpose, re-notify on 16th May 2025.

8. In the meantime, so as to not render the present revision petitions infructuous, it is directed that execution proceedings against the petitioners shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing before this court.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid findings, the latter would not be obligated to pay use and occupation charges during the pendency of the present petition. It is further submitted that the aforesaid prima facie opinion of the learned Predecessor Bench was with respect to the issue of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the same required further consideration.

6. Needless to state that the aforesaid findings of the learned Predecessor Bench was just a prima facie opinion and a final decision on the contentions of the petitioner was yet to be taken.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defence taken by the latter, during the course of trial, was that there was a document executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent in favour of the petitioner with