CM(M) 600/2022

Page 1 of 8

$~7(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 600/2022 & CM No.28488/2022

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, Sr.

Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms.

Tanya, Advs.

versus

PREM CHAND GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. J.C. Mahindro and Mr.

Gaurav Singh, Advs. for R-IA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

1.

It is gratifying to note that without entering into intricacies of

facts and figures, this Court is in a position to dispose of the present

petition, by consent between learned Counsel.

J U D G M E N T(O R A L)

%

12.07.2022

2.

Given the nature of the order that I am passing today, it is not

necessary to enter into the history of the litigation between the parties.

Suffice it to state that, by an order dated 1^st June, 2019, passed in E.P.

M 29527/16, the learned Additional Rent Controller (“the learned

ARC”) directed eviction of the petitioner from the property of the

respondent, under the Proviso to Section 14(2) read with Clauses

14(1)(a) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner

appealed, against the said order, before the learned Rent Control

Tribunal (“the learned RCT”) vide RCT 44/2019 (Ashok Kumar Jain

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002663

CM(M) 600/2022

Page 2 of 8

& Anr. v. Prem Chand Gupta & Anr.). The impugned order dated

28^th

May, 2022 directs the petitioner to pay, to the respondent, user

and occupation charges in respect of the suit property @ ₹ 41,500/-

per month for the period June to December, 2019,

₹ 44,000/

- per

month for the period January to December, 2020, ₹ 47,000/ - per

month for the period January to December, 2021 and

₹ 50,000/

- per

month for the period January to December, 2022. It may be noted,

here, that the rent which was agreed between the petitioner and the

respondent and which the petitioner had been paying, was ₹ 1,000/-

per month, as per the rate fixed in 1983.

3.

The direction for payment of user and occupation charges

(essentially mesne profits) was passed by way of implementation of

Conclusion (2) in para 19 of the report in the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd.¹

1 (2015) 1 SCC 705

.

The Supreme Court, in the said case, held that where an order of

eviction stood passed against a tenant and the tenant was liable to pay,

to the landlord, mesne profits for continued user and occupation of the

said premises beyond the date of eviction. The quantum of mesne

profits which would be required to be paid would be “at the same rate

at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and

earned rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises”. The

Supreme Court also clarified that the landlord was not bound by the

contractual rate of rent fixed between the tenant and himself. Para 19

of the report in Atma Ram Properties on which the learned RCT has

placed reliance, may be reproduced thus:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002663

CM(M) 600/2022

Page 3 of 8

"19. To sum up, our conclusions are:-

(1)

while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of

Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the

appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the

applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its

opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder for

loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the

grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being

dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are

concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be

reasonable;

(2)

in case of premises governed by the provisions

of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the

definition of tenant contained in clause (I) of Section 2

of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated

merely by its termination under the general law; it

terminates with the pass