The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd Yaseen vs Gulzar Begum consisting of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reiterated that after the passing of the decree of eviction, the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled to mesne profits or compensation for his/her deprivation of the use of the tenanted premises.
Facts:
This application was filed by the Respondent landlady seeking a direction to the non-applicant, tenant to pay use and occupation charges at the prevailing market rent during the pendency of the revision petition, including the arrears from the date of the passing of the eviction order of 2018. The subject matter of the revision petition was one shop situated on the ground floor at Ballimaran, Delhi 110006 (‘tenanted premises’). A decree of eviction had been passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Applicant and against the Tenant.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: The Petitioner disputed the Respondent’s claim of ownership of the tenanted premises. Hence, no direction for payment of user charges can be passed during the pendency of the revision petition. The Petitioner’s grandfather and Respondent’s father-in-law being cousins, the subject shop fell to the share of the Petitioner’s grandfather in an oral settlement. Moreover, he became the owner of the subject shop by adverse possession since he has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the same for 25 years.
Respondent: It was contended that the tenancy stood terminated with the decree of eviction and therefore, the Petitioner was liable to pay compensation for the use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which she would have been able to let out the premises and earn the rent if the Tenant would have vacated the tenanted premises. It was further contended that the subject shop was purchased by the Respondent’s grandfather-in-law of the Petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 26.04.1939 and the house tax is being paid by her.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench held that a plea of oral settlement cannot be countenanced in light of the registered title document i.e., the sale deed dated 26.04.1939, standing in favour of the predecessor of the Respondent. It relied on Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022 6 SCC 30) wherein the Apex Court held that for availing a leave to defend under Section 25B (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a mere assertion per se would not suffice and therefore, not give rise to a triable issue. Further, in this case, the Petitioner despite being aware of the claim of ownership made by the Respondent by issuing a legal notice dated 16.12.2017 and filing the eviction petition, had not filed any legal proceedings for seeking a declaration of his alleged ownership. Therefore, prima facie, the Petitioner’s challenge to the title of the Respondent did not have any merit.
It further opined concerning the alternative plea that the Petitioner had become an owner of the subject shop by adverse possession, that the same was not maintainable in law being mutually destructive with his plea of challenging the ownership rights of the Respondent. Thus, prima facie, the plea of adverse possession was also not maintainable, which was unsubstantiated from the record.
Relying on Martin and Harris Private Limited & Anr. v. Rajendra Mehta & Ors. (2022 8 SCC 527) it reiterated that after the passing of the decree of eviction, the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled to mesne profits or compensation for his/her deprivation of the use of the tenanted premises.
Judgment:
The Bench concluded that concerning arrears, the eviction order was passed on 07.05.2018 and therefore, the tenancy as per the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, stood terminated on the said date. The Petitioner was, therefore, liable to pay arrears from 07.05.2018 to 31.12.2022. It made clear that if the Petitioner made any default in making payment of the current monthly charges or the arrears as determined above, the interim order dated 31.07.2018 would stand automatically vacated without any further orders from the Court and the Respondent may take steps to execute the eviction order dated 07.05.2018.
Case: Mohd Yaseen vs Gulzar Begum
Citation: RC.REV. 359/2018
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Dalip Singh.
Advocate for Respondent: Ms. Zehra Khan, Advocate. (DHCLSC).
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
