Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Re : Messrs G. K. Sports vs Federal Motors Private Ltd). Wherein ... on 26 July, 2016 cites

M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004

The argument of Mr. Chatterjee that the report as submitted by Talbot & Co. is to be thrown out as it is made to order report is also not convincing to this court. The tenant could have taken the responsibility to create such a report by another agency. The rent of the property as assessed by Talbot & Co. per sq.ft about which I have already discussed cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the market rent. The appellant tenant lost in both the courts below and both the courts below concurrently held that the property is not being possessed in the manner for which the property was given on rent. Mr. Sahu on instruction submitted that it is being occupied by some employees of M/s. G.K. Sports. Thus, the total rent in due as calculated above up till 31.07.2016 is Rs.53,01,600/- as calculated from 01.02.2008. This court is not unmindful of the fact that in Atma Ram (supra) the Apex Court upheld the increase of rent from Rs.372 to Rs.15000 in a case of tenancy for which eviction proceeding was started in the year 1992. Thus, there was an increase of 40 times. Even if I make the amount of Rs.53,01,600, that is the total arrear rent calculated earlier upto 31.07.2016 to be ¾th then it will come to Rs.39,76,200/- as arrear rent. According to me considering the valuation of the property, the position of the property, area of the property being enjoyed and the total floor space under occupation of the appellant/tenant including kitchens, latrines, balconies etc,. then I must say that for the use of such property for continuous period of 102 months such amount of Rs.39,76,200/- cannot be said to be too much. The breakup being, for the first period from 01.02.2008 to 31.01.2012 is Rs.29550/-, for the second period from 01.02.2012 to 31.07.2014 is Rs.42,000/- and for the third period from 01.08.2014 to 31.07.2016 is Rs.54,075/-. I also make it clear that after 01.08.2016 the 6 tenant opposite party must go on paying Rs.66,015/- (being ¾th of Rs.88,020/- as calculated earlier) till the disposal of the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 729 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

The Regional Manager The Agricultural ... vs Sri B.C.Amarnath And Others on 29 April, 2012

He also cited a decision of this Hon'ble Court as reported in 2014 (2) CHN (Cal) 562, a single bench judgment (Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Limited vs. S.K. Banerjee @ Suchit Kumar Banerjee) wherein this court relying on the decisions of the Apex court as delivered in Atma Ram (supra) and (Anderson wright Company vs. Amarnath Roy) as reported in 2005 (6) SCC Page 489 held that now it is a settle law that in order to get a protection by way of stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree of eviction the tenant has to pay occupational charges at the rate of market rent of the locality for the period starting from the date of the passing of ejectment decree if the case was guided by rent laws or from the date of expiry of the lease, if the case was guided by T.P. Act and also to pay current market rent month by month till disposal of the appeal.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1