NEELAM CHOPRA Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (hereafter referred to by her name "Neelam Chopra") claims to be aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2009 (impugned order) to the extent that it directs the respondent (hereafter referred to as "Panna Lal") to pay Rs. 50,000/- as use and occupation charges in respect of Shop No.58B, Khan Market, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "suit premises").

(2.) Neelam Chopra, during the course of the proceedings, stated that she has no objection to suffer a permanent injunction as the plaintiff Panna Lal would not be evicted and dispossessed except in accordance with law. As a result, on 27.05.2008, the Court disposed off the suit and pending applications. However, the Counter Claim survives. Neelam Chopra contended that as long as the Counter claim was pending, the defendant Panna Lal should pay her Rs. 5 lakhs for use and occupation of the suit property. Panna Lal, on the other hand, stated that Neelam Chopra was creating obstructions in the smooth running of the business as electricity was disconnected in the suit premises and that she had filed certain First Information Reports against him in connivance with officers of New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). He, however, expressed his willingness to pay Rs. 50,000/- as use and occupation charges in terms of an earlier order, provided, Neelam Chopra agreed to the supply of electricity and also issuance of NOC in favour of the NDMC. The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions of the parties proceeded to accept the submissions of Panna Lal and directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.02.2008. That amount was to be paid on or before 7 th of each English calendar month. Neelam Chopra is in appeal against that order. Her counsel relied upon the materials placed on record in the form of copies of employment registers maintained in respect of the suit premises as well as copies of other documents to say that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is very inadequate. The materials relied upon includes a photocopy of documents in which amongst others another concern "The Body Shop" which was in occupation of a ground floor back lane block to the extent of 464 Sq. Ft. was paying '4.32 lakhs per month as lease rent. Similarly, copy of a registered lease deed entered into between B.S. Chugh and Colour Plus Fashions Ltd. in respect of 534 Sq. Ft. area on the ground floor, i.e., Shop No.28A, Khan Market was leased out for Rs. 3 lakhs 35 thousand per month. Other materials too have been relied upon to show that the suit premises are capable of fetching much higher rent and that the use and occupation charges directed by the learned Single Judge is grossly inadequate. It was submitted by the counsel for Neelam Chopra that two other proceedings are pending before the Division Bench. First is LPA 423/2010 (filed by Neelam Chopra against the order of learned Single Judge dated 31.05.2010 requiring the NDMC to restore electricity to the premises) and the second proceedings, i.e., LPA 207/2001 (directed against the order in another writ petition filed by Panna Lal where the learned Single Judge had, by judgment dated 10.01.2011, directed that Neelam Chopra's "No Objection" was not necessary to issue a trade license). It was submitted that Panna Lal had, on 03.06.2011, in both the said appeals agreed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs towards use and occupation charges in respect of the premises.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, i.e., Panna Lal, argued that the order of the learned Single Judge is a purely interlocutory one and that the parties have to proceed to prove merits of the respective contentions in the pending Counter Claim. It was argued that the Panna Lal has been in continuous and long occupation of the suit premises as a lessee and that till date Neelam Chopra has not issued any notice terminating the arrangement. Learned counsel argued that having regard to the other litigations pending before various Courts including criminal proceedings, it would be inappropriate that through the present appeal, a final determination directing a considerably higher amount than what was ordered by the learned Single Judge should be made.