ANGOORI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SATYA BHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for direction to the non-applicant-petitioner-tenant to deposit mesne profits/damages as per the market rent i.e. @ Rs. 14,000/- p.m. for the use and occupation of the tenanted shop/during the pendency of the present petition. It has been averred that after the appeal filed by the applicant/landlord was allowed the tenant is in illegal use and occupation of the shop in question and the relation of landlord and tenant has been terminated and therefore he is not entitled to continue to pay at the contractual rent @ Rs. 500/- p.m. It is further pleaded that the shop is situated in the main market at Mahavir Marg Road, Nar-naul and the present market rent is not less than Rs. 14,000/- p.m. By way of example the lease deed of a similarly situated shop has been placed on record which is dated 06.04.2012 where the rent has been fixed at Rs. 14,000/- per month with the stipulation of 15% increase in every three years. Other instances have also been given and it has also been averred that apart from the locational similarities the area of the shops are similar to that owned by the applicant. It is therefore prayed that the mesne profits be fixed @ Rs. 14,000/- per month from the date of the eviction i.e. 11.08.2011 along with interest. In reply, it has been disputed that the area of the shop is 167 sq. feet and averred that it is in fact 124 sq. feet while the other shops of which example has been given are of much larger area and are even otherwise locationally better situated. It is further averred that in any case the non-applicant cannot be held entitled to the market rent but only 'some compensation', and that too, from the date of application.

(2.) The dispute ostensibly lies between a narrow compass but has thrown up the following issues:-

(3.) Before discussing the same it may be profitable to review this latest judicial innovation. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (or for that matter other similar Acts) had no specific provision which laid down as to what would be the capacity in which a tenant would retain the tenanted property in the event of an order of eviction and how the landlord was to be compensated in case the tenant was granted a stay by the Superior Court. The matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005 1 RCR(Rent) 1. In that case, on the petition of landlord an eviction order was passed. The tenant filed an appeal and the Appellate Court while admitting the appeal granted stay of the eviction order subject to the condition that he would deposit in the Court Rs. 15,000/- p.m. in addition to the contractual rent which would be paid directly to the landlord. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 4, 8, 13, 15, 17 & 18 noticed as follows:-