Sidvi Enterprises P.Ltd vs Narender Kumar Widhani
2010 Latest Caselaw 2587 Del

                                                     UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           FAO No.219/2008

                                    Date of Decision: May 14, 2010


       SIDVI ENTERPRISES P.LTD                ..... Appellant
                     through Mr. D.D.Singh, Advocate

                  versus

       NARENDER KUMAR WIDHANI               ..... Respondent
                   through Ms. Ekta Kalra Sikri, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional

District Judge, Shri Daya Prakash dated April 24, 2008 allowing the

application of the respondent herein filed under Order 39 Rule 10

read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby

directing the appellant to pay the admitted rent @ Rs.24,360/-

up-to-date from April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007. It is not

disputed by the appellant that it was in possession of the suit

premises from April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007. It is also not in

dispute that a sum of Rs.24,360/- per month with effect from

April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007 has not been paid by the

appellant to the respondent towards use and occupation of the

premises.

It is submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay charges for

the use and occupation for the period as noticed above,

notwithstanding the fact that it had been using the premises, the

reason being that the respondent had not paid the arrears of

electricity for the period prior to the tenancy of the appellant

resulting in disconnection of the electricity in the premises. It is

further submitted that because of the disconnection, the appellant had

to take a generator on which he incurred expenses and, therefore, it is

urged that before the appellant is directed to pay charges towards use

and occupation for the period indicated above, it should be allowed to

adjust the expenses incurred by it towards electricity and the security

amount which is lying with the respondent.

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,

submits that the appellant has filed a suit for damages as well as for

refund of security deposit which is pending trial in the Court of

Shri A.K.Chawla, Additional District Judge and that the appellant can

claim the said amount only if the said suit gets decided in its favour.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I find that in

so far as the impugned order dated April 24, 2008 is concerned, the

trial Court thereby has only directed the appellant to pay the admitted

use and occupation charges for the period April 01, 2007 till

November 05, 2007. In so far as the question of the appellant having

incurred damages and the liability of the respondent to refund the

security amount are concerned, the appellant itself has filed a

separate suit claiming that amount and, therefore, it cannot claim

adjustment of that amount towards the use and occupation of the

premises. As and when and in case the suit filed by the appellant gets

decided in its favour, only then shall it become entitled to the amount.

I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appellant is directed to

pay the use and occupation charges @ Rs.24,360/- from April 01, 2007

till November 05, 2007.

With this direction, the appeal is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MAY 14, 2010 PC/ka