Darshan Singh v. Saleha Khatoon & Ors.

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of Respondent/landlord seeking directions to the Petitioner/tenant to pay user and occupation charges.

2. Notice in this Application was issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 06.03.2023 and thereafter Reply(ies) and documents have been filed by the parties.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/landlord submits that the property bearing no. 5002 to 5004, Chaman Ganj, Roshanara Road, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”] is a commercial property admeasuring 600 sq. yards and situated on the main Roshan Ara Road, Delhi. He seeks to rely upon two registered lease agreements. The first lease agreement dated 10.01.2023 is for a second floor at a rental of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The second lease agreement dated 12.04.2023 is for a shop bearing no. 4651 admeasuring 12’ x 33’ consisting of the ground floor and the mezzanine on the same Roshanara Road at a rental of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The area of the said lease premises is 12ft x 33 ft [44 sq. yards]. 3.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord further seeks to rely upon photographs of the subject premises, which he has annexed along with these two lease agreements to submit that the subject premises is being used for transport business by the Petitioner/tenant. 3.[2] Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord reiterates his submissions that at the pro rata, rent for the subject premises should be approximately Rs. 1.[5] lakhs.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant, on the other hand, seeks to rely upon his Reply along with rent receipt and other documents placed on record with the Reply. 4.[1] Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant submits that he is paying rental for the subject premises to the MCD for the last 80 years and that the Petitioner/tenant has not paid any rental to the Respondent/landlord for the last 35 years. He further submits that the Respondent/landlord is not the owner of the subject premises. 4.[2] Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant also submits that the subject premises is not fully covered and is partly an open area and user should be affixed accordingly. 4.[3] In addition, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the last rental paid by the Petitioner/tenant was Rs. 50 and paid in the year 1940. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant, thus, submits that no user and occupation charges are payable to the Respondent/landlord.

5. As has been held in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.[1] and Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. v. Rajendra Mehta[2], once a decree of possession has been passed and the execution is delayed, it is necessary for the Court to pass appropriate orders/directions fixing reasonable mesne profit/use and occupation charges equivalent to market rent to be paid by the person who is holding over the property.. The relevant extract of the Atma Ram case is below:

6. It is not disputed that the Petitioner/tenant is enjoying the interim protection from this Court from 03.05.2017 onwards, pursuant to an Eviction Order being passed against him in an Eviction Petition filed by the

Respondent/landlord being case no. E-77714/16 captioned Mst. Saleha Khatoon & Ors. V. Mr. Darshan Singh & Ors. However, no user and occupation charges are being paid by the Petitioner/tenant. It is also not disputed that the subject premises are on the ground floor and on the main Roshanara Road. The photographs of the subject premises which have not been denied by the Petitioner/tenant also shows that the road is a dual carriage way and also evidences that there are two single storey shops on the ground floor and one built up structure on the terrace of the first floor while remaining is an open area. The location of the subject premises is also not disputed.

7. The Petitioner/tenant has not filed any lease deeds. One of the lease deeds filed by the Respondent/landlord has given a rental of Rs. 40,000/- per month for an area of 44 sq. yards. Thus, the pro rata rental for the subject premises would be between Rs. 5 and 6 lakhs. However, given that the subject premises is only partly covered, this Court deems it apposite to fix a rental at Rs. 85,000/- per month for the present period in the manner as set out below.

8. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the following directions are passed:

(i) The user and occupation charges for the period commencing from

(ii) The user and occupation charges for the period commencing from

(iii) The user and occupation charges for the period commencing from

(iv) The user and occupation charges from 01.01.2025 onwards, shall be paid by the Petitioner/tenant at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per month, on or before 7th day of each calendar month.

(v) The user and occupation charges as set out in (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be paid by the Petitioner/tenant with the Registry of this Court in four equal instalments i.e., 15.01.2025, 28.02.2025, 31.03.2025 and 15.05.2025.