Gopal Sharma v. Mallo Mal Malhotra

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Respondent/landlord seeking direction to the Petitioner/tenant to deposit damages/mesne profits.

2. This Court by its order dated 23.10.2024, after hearing both the parties, had passed the following order and fixed the matter for hearing today:

floor at Kamla Nagar, Delhi, admeasuring 12X16 ft. The lease shows that the said premises is fetching a rental of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. He thus submits that the rental for the subject premises should be approximately Rs. 82,000/- per month if calculated on pro rata basis for this premises.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also seeks to rely upon six lease deeds of similar premises and contends that main road shops similarly situate at property no. 21-F and 27-F are fetching a rental in the range of Rs. 82,688/- and 88,200/- per month, respectively while those of the side lanes are fetching a lesser rental. The details of the said six lease deeds are as follows:

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requests for an accommodation.”

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has made the following submissions; in the first instance, relying on the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by this Court, it is contended that this Court had fixed the rental of a shop which is adjacent to the subject premises at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month and the Petitioner/tenant is willing to make such payment. 3.[1] In the second instance, he submits that the lease deeds that are relied upon by the Respondent/landlord are of premises that are in a better condition than the subject premises that are with the Petitioner/tenant for more than 30 years and are dilapidated. 3.[2] Lastly, relying on a registered lease deed dated 23.11.2022 which has been filed by the Respondent/landlord, he contends that the said lease deed is for one shop on ground floor along with mezzanine upto the ceiling level and hence the lease is for a rental of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. Thus, it is contended that the rental for the subject premises should be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord refutes these contentions. In the first instance, he seeks to draw the attention of the Court to Annexure B of the Rejoinder filed by the Respondent/landlord along with the photographs which are annexed at Annexure B with the present Application to submit that, the photographs of the shop named; “Sharma Leather Emporium”, which is the subject premises, can be clearly seen in these photographs as well as the adjacent shops, including the shop of which comparative lease deed dated 23.11.2022 is being relied upon, called “Dwell Spencer Shop”. 4.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord further submits that although the area of the comparative lease deed is slightly larger, however, in all other aspects, the premises is the same. In any event, it is contended that the rental for those premises is Rs. 1,20,000/- per month and the pro rata rental comes to approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month which is what has been asked for, as has been mentioned in the order dated 23.10.2024. 4.[2] In addition, it is stated that as far as concerns the mezzanine floor, the same is available to the Petitioner/tenant as well in the subject premises, to that extent, the contention of the Petitioner/tenant is unmerited. 4.[3] Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord further contends that so far as concerns the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by this Court, the said order was based on comparative lease deeds of basements of the years 2018 and 2019 and thus, it did not reflect the position of the like premises in the present day.

5. Admittedly, the subject premises is on the ground floor on a 40 ft. wide main road abutting in a commercial market of Kamla Nagar area. So far concerns the condition of the subject premises, as can be seen from the photographs which have been placed on record by the Respondent/landlord and which have not been disputed by the Petitioner/tenant, it cannot be said that the condition of the subject premises is dilapidated. However, it clear that the condition may not be as good as the adjacent; “Dwell Spencer Shop” of the comparative lease deed this Court is considering.

6. An examination of this Court’s order of 21.06.2023 shows that two of the lease deeds provided to the Court at that time were in respect of basement shops and 5-6 years old. The condition of those premises were poor as well.

7. Of the lease deeds filed by the Respondent/landlord, the lease deed dated 23.11.2022 which is for a property bearing no. 21-F (which is Dwell Spencer Shop) shows that for a property admeasuring 12 X 16 ft. approximately 192 sq. ft. along with ground floor and mezzanine upto the ceiling level, the rental for the period of three years from 01.12.2022 to 30.11.2025 is Rs. 1,20,000/- per month.

8. Concededly, the subject premises admeasures 14 X 9 ft. which is approximately 126 sq. ft. is on the ground floor and facing a main road. This is not disputed by the Petitioner/tenant. For this purpose, it is relevant to extract the site plan which is annexed at Annexure B of the Rejoinder which is reproduced below:

9. As can be seen from the above, Sharma Leather Emporium which is the subject premises is on the same road as the private shop no. 1 in green colour above (and is called “Dwell Spencer Shop”). Given the fact that a registered lease deed for an adjacent premises has been filed by the Respondent/landlord, this Court is of the view that this needs to be considered, however, the fact that the condition of the subject premises is not as good as “Dwell Spencer Shop”, the rental needs to be discounted. In addition, as can be seen, the other shop, on the front side bearing no. 22-F, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi which has been relied upon by the Petitioner/tenant (on the basis of the 21.06.2023 order) has a staircase contained therein thus, the space inside the shop is substantially reduced.

10. 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