TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to be granted, it had to be subject to conditions. The petitioners relied upon the ready reckoner of the property where the suit shop blocks are located and on that basis, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that even if the decree granted by the trial Court was to be stayed, the respondent ought to be directed to pay occupation charges by taking into account market rent and the ready reckoner placed on record. 5. By the impugned order dated 27.08.2018, the appellate Court granted stay of the decree passed by the trial Court, subject to the respondent paying Rs.10,000/- per month as occupation charges to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellate Court, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 6. Mr. Sunil Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the condition of paying Rs.10,000/- per month as occupation charges was unreasonably low taking into account the material placed before the appellate Court for determining reasonable amount towards payment of occupation charges by the respondent during the pendency of the appeal. The learned senior counsel relied upon ready reckoner, which demonstrated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Niyas Ahmad Khan .vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 539 and the judgment of this Court in Chandrakant .vs. Sharmila - 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 243. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no doubt about the position of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court as regards the manner in which the occupation charges are to be determined in a situation where the tenant is faced with a decree of eviction and an appeal is filed before the appellate Court. 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. 10. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Chandrakant .vs. Sharmila (supra), while taking into consideration various earlier judgments of this Court and the Hon ble Supreme court, it was held as follows:- 21. What emerge from these are:- (d) The Court, needs to consider and take note of (i) the Rent Control Legislation, governing the particular premises/residential or non-residential (ii) the Location/area of the premises (iii) the age/nature of construction of the building/premises (iv) the facilities in the premises and outside the premises, advantages and disadvantages (v) the market value and the rental value of the premises based on architecture/expert/valuation reports /opinion (vi) other instances of the rent/licence fees of similarly situated premises (vii) the date of termination of the tenancy/license. 12. 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. Although it is contended on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners in a shop block where, during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, the rent had been enhanced to about Rs.8,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, if the said figure is taken into consideration, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is justified. 16. The said contention raised on behalf of the respondent is unsustainable on the short ground that in the other premises where the respondent is now paying rent of Rs.8,000/- per month, it continues to enjoy the status of a tenant, while in the suit shop premises the relationship of landlord and tenant stands severed due to passing of the decree of eviction by the trial Court. 17. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
