Delhi High Court - Orders
Suman Lata vs Delhi Pinjrapole Society Regd on 22 March, 2021
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 254/2021
SUMAN LATA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Suraj Prakash Aggarwal, Adv
versus
DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY REGD ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Gaurav Barathi, Mr.Kartik
Bhagat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 22.03.2021 CM No.11119/2021 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 254/2021 & CM No.11118/2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in appeal, being RCT No. 88/2019, directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent/landlord a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month towards the use and occupation charges for the period from 11.03.2019 onwards.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is not in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705. He submits that the admitted rent of the petitioner is Rs.300/- per month, and the same could not have been raised to such disproportionate amount by the Impugned Order.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Date:23.03.2021 12:433. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by this Court in RC.REV. 266/2019, Ravinder Singh & Ors. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., wherein the tenant had undertaken to pay the use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for a property which is in a nearby vicinity to that of the petitioner. He submits that even otherwise, the use and occupation charges have been determined by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in a reasonable manner.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The learned Rent Control Tribunal in its Impugned Order has submitted that the area where the tenanted premises is located is in Karol Bagh and has thereafter, considered Rs.5,500/- per month to be a fair and reasonable amount to be paid by the petitioner as use and occupation charges. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with such exercise of discretion.
6. At the same time, this amount has been directed to be paid to the respondent. In State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Super Max International Private Limited & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 772, the Supreme Court has held that ordinarily, the amount of user and occupation charges fixed by the court over and above the contractual rent, should not be directed to be paid to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision. The deposited amount along with the accrued interest should be paid to either side only on disposal of such appeal/revision depending upon its result. Even if the same is to be released to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision, conditions should be placed on the landlord so as to ensure the refund of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Date:23.03.2021 12:43 same in case the appeal/revision is decided against the landlord. In the present case, the amount has been directed to be paid to the respondent/landlord. No reason has been given by the learned RCT for not having the amount deposited in court nor any condition has been put on the landlord for ensuring refund of the amount in case the petitioners are to succeed.
7. In view of the above, while not interfering with the amount directed to be paid by the petitioner, the Impugned Order is modified to the limited extent that the amount, instead of being paid to the respondent, shall stand deposited with the learned Rent Control Tribunal and shall be invested in a fixed deposit. The amount so deposited shall abide by further orders in the appeal.
8. The learned counsels for the parties agree that the Impugned Order wrongly directs the petitioner to make the payment of use and occupation charges with effect from 11.03.2019. The date of order of eviction in the present case is 03.05.2019. Accordingly, the direction to pay the use and occupation charges shall stand further modified to the extent that such charges shall be deposited by the petitioner with effect from 03.05.2019.
9. The learned Rent Control Tribunal is further requested to expedite the hearing of the appeal itself and make endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of three months from when it is next listed before it.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MARCH 22, 2021/Arya A. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Date:23.03.2021 12:43