S.K.Goel vs R.C.Kapoor
2011 Latest Caselaw 1105 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               RFA No.412/2001
%                                             23rd February, 2011

S.K.GOEL                                               ...... Appellant
                                Through:    Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.


                          VERSUS

R.C.KAPOOR                                              ...... Respondent
                                Through:     None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
         allowed to see the judgment?

    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?

    3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment

and decree dated 1.8.2001 which has partially decreed the suit for recovery

of arrears of rent/damages. The Trial Court has held the appellant/landlord

entitled to rent from 1.4.2000 till 4.7.2000.

2.             Learned counsel for the appellant, very ably argued that since

admittedly the respondent vacated the suit premises on 9.1.2001, the

respondent was surely liable to pay charges for use and occupation from 1st

April, 2000.

RFA No.412/2001                                                    Page 1 of 2
 3.          I agree.      Any person who uses a premises, is liable to pay

charges for use and occupation of the premises till he actually vacates the

premises.   The respondent admittedly stayed in the suit premises till

9.1.2001 and therefore the Trial Court has committed a clear-cut illegality

and perversity in granting the rent only from 1.4.2000 till 4.7.2000. Merely

because the written statement was filed on 4.7.2000 and which contained an

averment to hand over the possession, will not mean that till actual physical

possession is handed over and the respondent would not be liable to pay the

charges for use and occupation till the possession is actually handed over.

The possession as already stated, was actually handed over on 9.1.2001.

4.          Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and a decree is passed in

favour of the appellant and against the respondent directing the respondent

to pay the admitted rate of rent as charges for use and occupation of the

premises from 1.4.2000 till 9.1.2001. The appellant will be entitled to adjust

the decretal amount out of the amount of Rs.50,000/- lying with the

appellant as security. So far as the balance decretal amount is concerned,

the same can be realized by the appellant from the respondent by executing

the money decree. Decree sheet be prepared holding the appellant entitled

to recovery of charges for use and occupation at Rs.8,000/- per month from

1.4.2000 till 9.1.2001.    Trial Court record be sent back. Parties are left to

bear their own costs.


FEBRUARY 23, 2011                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak