Delhi High Court
Kaushalya Devi (Deceased) Through Lrs. vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Ors. on 25 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No.770/2014
% 25th August, 2014
KAUSHALYA DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ......Petitioners
Through: None.
VERSUS
SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.13599/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ C.M. (M) No.770/2014 and C.M.No.13598/2014 (stay)
2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 7.7.2014, by which during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners herein (appellants before the first appellate court in an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) have been directed to pay interim user CM(M) No.770/2014 Page 1 of 3 charges in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705.
3. Since the impugned order is a short order, I reproduce the same as under:-
"Heard on the application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.
Appellant has assailed eviction order dated 26.10.2013 passed by the Id. ARC in respect of a premises comprising of one hall. One small room with common use of hand pump and latrine on the ground floor of the property no. 3408 (part of property no. 3408-3409) ward no.3, chowk Ramayyan, Ganda Nala, Mori gate, Delhi-06.
Appellant seeks stay of the operation of the impugned eviction order. Principles laid down in Atma Ram Properties case, are the key to the prayer made. According to the respondent, the appellant was doing the business of corrugated boxes and having an income of about Rs.50,000/- per month and also owns a plot in Burari, though, in the name of his wife. Son of the appellant is stated to be an Engineer, working in a Corporate Sector. Besides that it is averred that wife of the appellant is running tuition centre at 3273, Gali Dorwali, Ganda Nala, Mori Gate, Delhi- 06. As regards, the rental value of the premises in question, though, it is averred that can fetch Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- Per month, no material in support of such averments has come to be filed. In the given facts and circumstances, it can be reasonably assessed that the premises in question can easily fetch Rs.5,500/- per month.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, subject to the appellant depositing with the Id. ARC, a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month from the date of the passing of the impugned eviction order i.e. 26.10.2013 till the disposal of the appeal, the arrears payable within CM(M) No.770/2014 Page 2 of 3 30 days and the amounts so falling due every month payable by the 10th day of each succeeding month, the operation of the impugned eviction order is stayed. Application stands disposed off accordingly. Put up of arguments in the appeal on 09.10.2014."
4. In my opinion, a sum of Rs.5,500/- in the city of Delhi with respect to a tenanted premises comprising of a hall, one small room, toilet in a property situated in the Centre of Delhi at Mori Gate cannot be said to be excessive. The suit property is located at the ground floor of premises bearing No.3408 (part of property no.3408-09) ward no.3, Chowk Ramayyan, Ganda Nala, Mori Gate, Delhi-06. The ratio of judgment in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) is clear that while hearing an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, courts are empowered to direct tenants to pay interim user charges and which has been done by the impugned order, and since the interim user charges are only Rs.5,500/- per month, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, much less for exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 25, 2014 Ne CM(M) No.770/2014 Page 3 of 3