Title: MURARI CHAUHAN & ANR vs KAILASH NARAIN MALHOTRA
Decided on: 21.06.2023
+ RC.REV. 174/2019 & CM APPL. 13057/2019 and CM APPL. 40082/2019
CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Introduction
The Delhi High court passed an order on an application seeking directions to pay use and occupation charges by the petitioner/tenants from the date of the eviction order dated 20.09.2018 till the revision petition is finally decided by this court.
Facts of the case
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/landlord submits that the Petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the demised premises for many years and the execution of the Eviction Order was stayed by this Court on 19.03.2019.
The present Application was filed on 03.08.2019 and the Notice in the Application was issued on 13.03.2020. On 13.03.2020, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant had sought time to file a Reply to the present Application. The Reply has not been filed despite the last opportunity granted by this Court on 25.01.2023. On 01.05.2023, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant, sought more time to file a Reply to the present Application.
Respondent/landlord has opposed the grant of any further time to file the Reply, as no Reply has been filed for almost 4 years. He further submits that the Petitioner/tenant has obtained Interim Orders from this Court and thereafter no use and occupation charges are being paid by the Petitioner/tenant.
In these circumstances, the Orders in this Application were reserved, and the Parties were given leave to file their respective written submissions.
Analysis and Decision of the court
The Delhi High Court held that the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Martin and Harris Private Limited and Another v. Rajendra Mehta and others confirmed Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. in the event that after the eviction is accepted, the tenant is obliged to pay the usage fees and usage fee of the respective sites based on the market rate until the application is finally removed. However, it has been found that the tendency to pay benefit or compensation depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the location of the property, whether it is in a village, town or city, and its character, whether commercial or residential and the circumstances of each case are governed by the usual rate of rent. It is noted that in relation to rentals at:
(i) It is a newly constructed building and therefore not applicable;
(ii) It is 2600 sq. ft. property with a rent of Rs. 72,000/- so at that price the occupancy charges for this space can be around Rs. 27.70 per square meter foot;
(iii) Located far from the destroyed sites in a more expensive location.
The applicant/tenant has not registered leases. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the rental agreement no. (ii), above, viz. property measuring 258 square meters @ Rs.72,000/- seems most suitable for comparison considering that the destroyed premises is a shop on the ground floor.
In addition, since the location of the demolished premises is in a prime commercial area and the fact that the applicant/tenant uses the demolished premises for commercial purposes as much as he is engaged in the sale of shoes for daily use must also be borne. in mind However, since the demolished space is located in an old and dilapidated building, the price has been reduced. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties, the applicant/tenant shall pay the occupancy and accommodation fees to the defendant/landlord and all payments shall be made to the bank account of the defendant/landlord.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta
