Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 2079 - HC - Indian LawsQuantum of occupation charges of the suit premises - application for stay of decree filed by the respondent (tenant) has been allowed on the condition that the respondent shall pay an amount Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the judgment of the trial court till the decision of appeal towards occupation charges of the suit premises - it is contended that amount is unreasonably low, considering the market rent that is being fetched by similar properties in the very same building. HELD THAT:- While granting stay of the decree passed against the appellant, the appellate Court is expected to impose conditions that are reasonable and those that are based on the prevalent market conditions. This is because when the trial Court passes decree of eviction, the relationship of landlord and tenant stands severed and if the person who has been occupying the premises as a tenant desires to occupy the same during the pendency of the appeal challenging the eviction decree, he is expected to abide by conditions that are imposed by the appellate Court while granting stay. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners show that relevant material for determining quantum of such occupation charges can certainly be ready reckoner, lease deeds or rent agreements executed in the recent past concerning comparable properties, so that the Court can arrive at a reasonable figure towards occupation charges while granting stay of decree of eviction faced by the tenant. In the judgments in the case of Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. .vs. State of Maharashtra [2009 (8) TMI 1282 - SUPREME COURT] and ADAM ALI H. FIRDOSY, INAYAT ALI S/O LATE HUSSAIN FIRDOSY, AKBAR ALI S/O LATE HUSSAIN FIRDOSY, VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, [2018 (3) TMI 1999 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court has proceeded on the basis that when the market rate of the suit premises is determined on the basis of a ready reckoner or other such relevant material, 6% of such market value gives the figure that the suit property would fetch annually towards rent. On this basis, in the aforesaid cases, this Court has proceeded to determine the figure of occupation charges to be paid by the tenant who seeks stay of the eviction decree. The aforesaid position of law is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, but, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyas Ahmad Khan .vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan [2008 (5) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT] to contend that the appellate Court in the present case had fixed a reasonable figure towards occupation charges. It was contended that when the appellate Court imposes condition while determining the quantum of occupation charges, it cannot adopt an arbitrary figure and that the condition cannot be unreasonable or oppressive. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is clearly distinguishable because in that case the landlord had failed in both the Courts below and it was the writ petition of the landlord which was being considered by the High Court and in such a situation, the question that the High Court considered was as to whether the tenant could be asked to pay a higher figure towards occupation charges or rent during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court. In the said case, since the Courts below had not granted the eviction decree, the relationship of landlord and tenant continued and, therefore, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case pertained to a totally different factual scenario. Even if the said position of law, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, is applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that while passing the impugned order, the appellate Court failed to take into consideration the material placed on record on behalf of the petitioners. If the ready reckoner is taken into consideration and applied to the suit shop premises, it has come on record that the market value of the suit shop block would come to about Rs.82.71 square meter X 1,49,400/- per square meter. Although the petitioners have contended that the area in occupation of the respondent is about 1332 square feet, but taking into consideration the pleadings on record and the fact that the appeal is still pending before the appellate Court, even if the area of only two shop blocks is taken into consideration, it undisputedly comes to about 890 square feet, which is about 82.71 square meters. Therefore, the rate specified in the ready reckoner has been multiplied by the figure of 82.71 square meters to arrive at market value of the suit shop blocks. It is undisputed that if the said market value is taken into consideration and the rent of the two shop blocks is estimated at about 6% of the said figure, the monthly rate of rent comes to about Rs.1,71,631/- per month - It appears that in the said lease deed, the tenant is a Bank and the period of lease is upto the year 2031 with periodical increase in the rent amount every five years. Taking into consideration these factors, it appears that a figure of Rs.1,00,000/- per month is a reasonable amount towards occupation charges for the suit shop blocks, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that there shall be stay of the decree of eviction granted by the trial Court, subject to the condition that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date of the judgment of the trial Court till the decision of the appeal, towards occupation charges for the suit premises. The arrears of the said occupation charges at the aforesaid rate shall be deposited by the respondent within a period of three months from today.
|