Delhi High Court
Surya Kant Jain vs Uma Sahay Memorial Trust on 7 December, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
$-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
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
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
