Surya Kant Jain vs Uma Sahay Memorial Trust

$-40
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 07.12.2011.

+             CM(M) 1417/2011 & CM Nos.22067-68/2011

SURYA KANT JAIN                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through   Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
                                      with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
                                      Advocate.

                       versus


UMA SAHAY MEMORIAL TRUST                        ..... Respondent
                 Through:             Mr.Manish Vashist and
                                      Mr.Sameer Vashist, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Order impugned is the order dated 27.08.2011 vide which during the pendency of an appeal before the ARCT on an application filed by the landlord under Section 38 (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA), the Court had directed the admitted occupant of the suit premises i.e. premises of the ground floor, first floor and second floor of C-1/A (Old No. B-11A), Maharani Bagh, New Delhi to pay monthly user charges of Rs.2 lacs which was effective w.e.f. the date of the eviction order which is dated 21.04.2003. This order is the subject matter of the present CM (M) No. 1417/2011 Page 1 of 4 petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2 lacs per month is an inflated figure for which there was no evidence forthcoming; admittedly no document had been filed by the petitioner to support his submission that the market rate of rent of the aforenoted premises would be Rs. 2 lacs. On this count, the averments made in the application filed by the landlord under Section 38 (3) of the DRCA have been perused. Para 4 specifically states that the appellant (petitioner herein) was putting unnecessary hurdles and impediments in the way of the respondent from taking possession of the said premises; in para 9 it had been averred that the suit property had been located in Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and measures 400 square yards which can easily fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 2 lacs; accordingly prayer was made for payment of the aforenoted figure. In the corresponding para 9 of the reply filed to the said application it had merely been stated that the averments in this para are not correct; legally recoverable amount in terms of the agreement was agreed to be paid by the respondent (petitioner herein). It was in this context and also taking judicial notice of the fact that the premises is located in a posh locality of South Delhi as also the CM (M) No. 1417/2011 Page 2 of 4 area which was admittedly in use and occupation of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.2 lacs per month was ordered to be paid as user charges is reasonable and in no manner which figure can be said to be arbitrary. Judicial notice of the rising prices of properties and the devaluation of the rupee had been taken into account. On this count, the judgment suffers from no infirmity.

3. The second argument propounded by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order could not have been passed w.e.f. the date of the eviction order i.e. w.e.f. 21.04.2003 and at best it can take effect only from the date of passing of the order. He has placed reliance upon the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. 115 (2004) DLT 531 (SC). A perusal of this judgment negatives this submission. Para 16 & para 18 although do not specifically states that the date from which an order may be passed by the appellate Court directing the occupant to pay the user charges, yet this is the necessary corollary which arises; eviction order in this case has been passed admittedly on 21.04.2003 and the impugned order directing the user charges to be payable from the said date i.e. the date on which the eviction decree had fallen into the hands of the landlord, thus suffers from no infirmity. This objection of the petitioner is also without any merit.

4. The last objection raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order has imposed charges upon the occupant who was admittedly not the tenant; contention of the petitioner being that it is only the tenant who can be asked to pay user charges not the occupier. This part of the order also suffers from an infirmity. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is enjoying the use and occupation of the premises; equity does not in any manner enjoin a party to occupy and use another man's land without paying any user charges. This argument is also without merit. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.

5. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR,J DECEMBER 07, 2011 A CM (M) No. 1417/2011 Page 4 of 4