ORDER : 1. This is an application filed by the landlord who is respondent in the Special Leave Petition praying that the non-applicant tenant is merely paying Rs. 175/- per month which was fixed decades ago, is grossly disproportionate to the market rent prevailing in the said area. 2. The applicant-landlord had filed an application for eviction of the non- applicant - tenant under Section 14(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. The said eviction suit was decreed by the learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 18th May, 2010. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the non-applicant - tenant filed a Revision Petition before the Delhi High Court. The tenant prayed for stay of execution of the eviction decree against him. When the said stay application came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 24th August, 2011, the applicant-landlord pointed out that the market rent of the suit property would be around Rs. 50,000/- per month and therefore, it was prayed that the petitioner- tenant be directed to pay the market rent from the date of the eviction decree in view of the judgment of this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2005)1 SCC 705 . 4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the petitioner-tenant to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month with effect from 18th May, 2010 during the pendency of the Revision Petition noticing the fact that the suit property was situated in a prime commercial area of Delhi. The arrears were directed to be paid within a period of one month. The order of the High Court in the aforesaid petition is set out as under :- "RC. REV. 226/2010 Today counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner will pursue this petition on merits. In view of this, counsel for both the parties submit that revision petition can be fixed for final hearing on some actual date. Accordingly list this revision petition for final hearing in the category of 'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters' on 15th December, 2011. CM APPL. In view of this, counsel for both the parties submit that revision petition can be fixed for final hearing on some actual date. Accordingly list this revision petition for final hearing in the category of 'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters' on 15th December, 2011. CM APPL. 17100/2010 Learned senior counsel for the respondent-landlord says that as a condition for stay of execution of the impugned eviction order, if at all this Court is inclined to grant that relief the petitioner-tenant is directed to pay charges for use and occupation of the tenanted premises at the present market rate keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2005)1 SCC 705 . He also says that the present day market rent of the two shops in question would be around Rs. 50,000 per month. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant while not disputing that he is not liable to pay charges for use and occupation over and above the agreed contractual rent says that the market rent of two shops would not be more than 10,000 per month. Without going into detailed enquiry as to what would be the recent rent of the premises in question, which are stated to be in Qutab Road, a prime commercial area these days in Delhi, I direct the petitioner to pay to the respondent- landlord charges for use and occupation Rs. 25,000 per month from the date of passing of the impugned eviction order till the disposal of this petition. This would be a condition of stay of dispossession of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question. The arrears shall be cleared within a month and from September, 2011 onwards the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent on or before 7th of each month. In case of default, the petitioner shall become liable to be evicted forthwith. The amounts paid by the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the revision petition. This application stands disposed of accordingly." 5. The non-applicant - tenant filed a Review Petition under Order 48 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court itself against the aforesaid order dated 24th August, 2011 being Review Petition No. 528 of 2011. The amounts paid by the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the revision petition. This application stands disposed of accordingly." 5. The non-applicant - tenant filed a Review Petition under Order 48 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court itself against the aforesaid order dated 24th August, 2011 being Review Petition No. 528 of 2011. In the said Review Petition, the petitioner annexed a valuation report in relation to only 276 square feet in support thereof (whereas the suit property was ad- measuring about 500 square feet). 6. The applicant-landlord filed a Lease Deed of a neighbouring premises (not owned by the applicant) which shows that the market rent of the suit property would be Rs. 65,000/- per month as per the said Lease Deed. 7. After hearing the parties, the High Court was pleased to dismiss Revision Petition No.528 of 2011 filed by the petitioner-tenant and thereby upheld the fixation of rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month with effect from 18th May, 2010. 8. However, unfortunately the non-applicant - tenant deliberately did not pay the interim rent at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- fixed by the Delhi High Court during the pendency of the Revision Petition. The Revision Petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2011 on merits. The said order was challenged by the non-applicant - tenant before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.873 of 2012. 9. The said Special Leave Petition came up for admission hearing before this Court on 12th January, 2012 when this Court while dismissing the aforesaid petition granted one year's time to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises, subject to filing usual undertaking within 4 weeks. The order reads as under :- "Taken on Board. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, as prayed for, one year's time is granted for vacating the premises upon filing usual undertaking in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today." 10. We had granted one year's time to vacate the premises on the aforesaid date. 11. The main reason for proliferation of landlord tenant matter is primarily because landlord do not get rent which is close to the market rent. We had granted one year's time to vacate the premises on the aforesaid date. 11. The main reason for proliferation of landlord tenant matter is primarily because landlord do not get rent which is close to the market rent. In landlord tenant matter it is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to ensure that the landlord gets rent which is akin to market rent. The High Court was quite justified in increasing the rent from Rs. 175/- to Rs. 25,000/- in view of the facts of this case. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we direct that in case the non-applicant - tenant wants to stay in the premises for the aforesaid period then he would be obliged to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- with effect from 18th May, 2010 per month as fixed by the High Court of Delhi, otherwise the tenant is directed to vacate the premises within one month from today subject to filing usual undertaking within four weeks from today and give peaceful possession to the applicant-landlord along with arrears of rent with effect from 18th May, 2010. If the premises is not vacated within the time stipulated above, then the applicant-landlord would be at liberty to take police help and get the possession of the premises from the non-applicant - tenant. 13. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Appeal disposed of.