JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The landlords of premises nomenclatured as Baljees Restaurant, 26, The Mall, Shimla, instituted before the Rent Controller (4), Shimla a petition for eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises. On the pleadings of the parties at lis the learned Rent Controller formulated the hereinafter extracted issues for rendition of findings thereupon: (i) Whether demised premises are required bonafide by the petitioners for rebuilding and reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without demised premises being vacated, as alleged? OPP. (ii) Whether present petition is barred under Section 18 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, as alleged? OPR. (iii) Whether petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPR. (iv) Whether petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by their act conduct and acquiescence, as alleged? OPR. (v) Whether present petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR. (vi) Whether reconstruction of demise premises cannot be done by the petitioners in view of restriction imposed by State Government, as alleged? OPR. (vii) Whether present petition is not properly verified, as alleged? OPR. (viii) Whether the present petition is bad for non compliance of mandatory provision of law, as alleged? OPR. (ix) Relief. On an appraisal of evidence by it as stood adduced before it, it rendered a decree of eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises. The order of eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises as stood rendered by the Rent Controller (IV), Shimla stood assailed by the petitioner herein/tenants by preferment of an appeal therefrom before the Appellate Authority, IV, Shimla. The latter affirmed the order of eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises as stood rendered by the learned Rent Controller (IV), Shimla. The tenants/petitioners herein laid a legal onslaught to the concurrently rendered orders of their eviction from the demised premises by both the Rent Controller (4), Shimla and by the Appellate Authority, IV, Shimla by theirs instituting the instant petition before this Court bearing Civil Revision No.138 of 2014. The tenants/petitioners herein laid a legal onslaught to the concurrently rendered orders of their eviction from the demised premises by both the Rent Controller (4), Shimla and by the Appellate Authority, IV, Shimla by theirs instituting the instant petition before this Court bearing Civil Revision No.138 of 2014. At the stage contemporaneous to the institution by the petitioners herein/tenants of the instant Civil Revision an application bearing CMP No.15463 of 2014 stood also instituted by them wherein relief of operation of the impugned order of 2.6.2014 rendered by the Appellate Authority-IV, Shimla in Rent Appeal No.31-S/14 of 2014/2012 being stayed was asked for from this Court. On 20.10.2014, this Court was pleased to till further orders allow the relief claimed in CMP No.15463 of 2014 by the petitioners herein/tenants. However, during the pendency of the revision petition before this Court, the landlords/respondents herein also instituted in the Registry of this Court CMP No.18694 of 2014 canvassing therein relief of the petitioners herein/tenants being liable to pay to the former use and occupation charges qua the demised premises at the rate of Rs.25,50,000/- per mensem from the date of rendition of an order of their eviction therefrom by the learned Appellate Authority, IV, Shimla till the handing over of its actual, vacant and peaceful possession by the petitioners herein/tenant to the former. 2. The application was responded by the petitioners herein/tenants wherein it was canvassed qua the claim of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.25,50,000/- per mensem reared against them by the respondents herein/landlords in the petition at hand being exorbitant. An adjudication by this Court of the claim ventilated in CMP No. 18694 of 2014 by the respondents herein/landlords for use and occupation charges qua the demised premises from the petitioners herein/tenants being a pre condition for this Court making absolute its orders of 20.10.2014 whereby it temporarily stayed the operation of the impugned concurrent renditions of orders of eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises of both the learned Appellate Authority, IV, Shimla as well as of learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla, gains succor from a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 titled as Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Versus Federal Motors (P) Ltd., the relevant paragraphs whereof are extracted herein-after: “19. To sum up, our conclusions are: (1) while passing an order of stay under R. 5 of Or. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decreeholder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be reasonable; (2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the definition of tenant contained in cl. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction. With effect from that date, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree; (3) the doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date. [20] In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000.00 per month. The Rent Control Tribunal was right in putting the tenant on term of payment of Rs. 15,000.00 per month as charges for use and occupation during the pendency of appeal. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000.00 per month. The Rent Control Tribunal was right in putting the tenant on term of payment of Rs. 15,000.00 per month as charges for use and occupation during the pendency of appeal. The Tribunal took extra care to see that the amount was retained in deposit with it until the appeal was decided so that the amount in deposit could be disbursed by the appellate Court consistently with the opinion formed by it at the end of the appeal. No fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. The High Court has interfered with the impugned order of the Tribunal on an erroneous assumption that any direction for payment by the tenant to the landlord of any amount at any rate above the contractual rate of rent could not have been made. We cannot countenance the view taken by the High Court. We may place on record that it has not been the case of the tenant- respondent before us, nor was it in the High Court, that the amount of Rs. 15,000.00 assessed by the Rent Control Tribunal was unreasonable or grossly on the higher side.” 3. The extraction aforesaid lends amplifying fortification to the inference aforesaid of this Court being enjoined to render an adjudication upon the claim ventilated in petition bearing No. CMP No.18694 of 2014 qua the entitlement of the respondents herein/landlords of use and occupation charges qua the demised premises from the petitioners herein/tenants as a pre condition for this Court making absolute its order of temporarily staying the operation of the impugned concurrent renditions of orders of eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises of both the learned Appellate Authority, IV, Shimla as well as of learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla, especially when the inference aforesaid is also garnerable from the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Maharashtra & Anr. Versus Super Max International Private Limited & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 772 . Versus Super Max International Private Limited & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 772 . The inevitable ensuing effect of the afore extracted relevant paragraphs of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court with a contemplation therein of the landlord of the demised premises being foisted with an indefeasible right to claim rendition of an adjudication by this Court on his apposite application for use and occupation charges from the tenant qua the demised premises as a pre condition for this Court making absolute its ad interim rendition staying the operation of the impugned concurrent renditions of orders of eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises of both the learned Appellate Authority, IV, Shimla as well as of learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla, is also of the landlord being fastened with a concomitant right to seek a determination from this Court of a quantification qua use and occupation charges payable by the tenants to him in departure from the contractual rate of rent defrayable qua the demised premises by the tenant to the landlord which rather remains intact or is effective only qua the period preceding the rendition of a decree of eviction on 7.3.2012 by the learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises. Obviously, hereafter this Court is beset to solve the legal conundrum qua (a) the period wherefrom the entitlement of the landlord to claim use and occupation charges from the tenants qua the demised premises commences or arises (b) the parameters which are enjoined to be borne in mind by this Court in quantifying use and occupation charges defrayable by the tenants to the landlords qua the demised premises. The answer to its commencement or the stage when a right thereof accrues in favour of the landlords for theirs staking a claim for use and occupation charges from the tenants qua the demised premises stands purveyed by the rendition of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram (supra), the relevant paragraph 19 stands extracted herein-after: 19. (2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the definition of tenant contained in cl. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction. (2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the definition of tenant contained in cl. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction. With effect from that date, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree; (3) the doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date.” With an explicit mandate encapsulated therein of on the tenancy of the tenant in the demised premises facing termination on rendition of a decree of eviction against him besides with an express postulation therein of the tenant therein being then liable to pay use and occupation charges qua the demised premises to the landlord in departure from the contractual rent payable qua it renders the date of termination of tenancy of the tenant in the demised premises constituted by rendition of a decree of his eviction therefrom to be the apposite stage wherefrom the landlord is vested with an inherent right to stake a claim for use and occupation charges qua the demised premises from the tenant or for reiteration it earns a conclusion of the right of the landlord to stake a claim for use and occupation charges from the tenants/petitioners herein qua the demised premises standing aroused or standing sprouted on a rendition on 7.3.2012 by the Rent Controller (IV), Shimla of a decree of eviction of the tenants/petitioners herein from the demised premises. In aftermath when thereupon hence the tenancy of the tenant in the demised premises stood terminated for inviting an inference of thereat the right aforesaid inhering in the landlord standing commenced besides with an expostulation in the hereinabove relevant extracted paragraphs of the renditions of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the doctrine of merger carrying no legal consequence in postponing the date of termination of tenancy especially even when the rendition of a decree of eviction of the tenants from the demised premises by the Rent Controller is meted concurrence by the Appellate Authority gives sinewed leverage to an obvious inference of the landlords being foisted with a legal right to claim from the tenants/petitioners herein qua the demised premises use and occupation charges from the date of rendition of an order of their eviction therefrom by the Rent Controller, IV, Shimla on 7.3.2012. The aforesaid conclusion hence begets an answer to the date of commencement of or of the stage wherefrom this Court is legally encumbered to assess qua the demised premises the use and occupation charges payable thereto by the tenants/petitioners herein to the landlords/respondents herein. In consequence, the espousal of the respondents herein/landlords of theirs having an inherent right standing ensued in their favour from the renditions of the Hon'ble Apex Court to claim use and occupation charges from the tenants/petitioners herein qua the demised premises from the date of rendition of an order of their eviction therefrom by the Appellate Authority in concurrence with the order of their eviction therefrom by the learned Rent Controller (IV), Shimla, stands dispelled. The concomitant legal effect thereof is of any quantification by this Court of use and occupation charges defrayable by the tenants/petitioners herein to the landlords qua the demised premises being enjoined to stand anvilled upon material denoting rent earned by premises adjoining the demised premises besides preponderantly such rent earned by alike premises adjoining the demised premises being in close contemporanity visà- vis the commencement of or the accrual of a right qua its defrayment to the landlords/ respondents herein by the tenants/petitioners herein qua the demised premises inasmuch as on 7.3.2012 whereat with the tenancy of the petitioners herein/tenants in the demised premises standing effacement by a rendition of a decree of their eviction therefrom by the learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla a right hence accrued in favour of the respondents/landlords to claim from the petitioners herein/tenants use and occupation charges qua the demised premises. 4. While applying the principle of this Court being enjoined to only un-earth apposite material unfolding portrayals of rent fetched by premises adjoining the demised premises besides earning thereof preeminently being in contemporanity viz-a-viz the stage of termination of tenancy of the tenants/ petitioners herein in the demised premises which occurred on 7.3.2012 under a rendition of the learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla, necessarily then (i) Lease deed comprised in Annexure R-1/A appended to the petition at hand disclosing its having stood executed besides registered with the competent registering authority on 30.7.2014 whereas the termination of tenancy of tenants in the demised premises occurred on 7.3.2012 wherefrom an indefeasible right of the landlords to claim use and occupation charges from the tenants qua the demised premises stood spurred constitutes it to be an inapposite parameter for borrowing or for reckoning there-from the value of the demised premises, for hence determining use and occupation charges payable qua the demised premises by the tenants/petitioners herein to the landlords/respondents herein. On the other hand, the material constituted in Annexure A-1 appended to CMP No.9910 of 2015 which is a lease deed qua commercial premises adjoining the demised commercial premises hence alike the latter premises though standing registration on 13.5.2008 hence prior to the termination of tenancy of the tenants in the demised premises which effect qua the demised premises stood sequelled on 7.3.2012 under a rendition of a decree of their eviction therefrom by the learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla nonetheless when clause (4) thereof manifests a recital of rent qua it bearing a rate of Rs.40,250 from 1.5.2011 to 30.4.2014 obviously when the latter period also encompasses the rendition of the learned Rent Controller, IV, Shimla where-under tenancy of the petitioners herein/tenants in the demised premises stood terminated where from computation of use and occupation charges defrayable qua it by the petitioners herein/tenants to the landlords/respondents herein is to commence especially when a right thereof stood then aroused in favour of the landlords respondents herein rather constitutes the apt reckoner for computing the value of the demised premises besides would obviously aid this Court in determining use and occupation charges payable by the petitioners herein/tenants to the landlords/respondents herein qua the demised premises herein. While according reverence to Annexure A-1 appended to CMP No.9910 of 2015 it is imperative to bear in mind the factum of the covered area of the commercial premises adjoining the demised premises comprised in Annexure A-1 being 500 square feet whereas the area of the demised premises as disclosed in Annexure P-1 at Page 198 is 5385 square feet. This Court hence is required to initially calculate the rent per square ft. payable under clause (a) of Annexure P-1 by the lessee therein to his lessor. Given the factum of the area recited in Annexure P-1 being 500 sqft. and with rent qua it payable by the lessee therein to his lessor being @ Rs.40250/- for a period encompassing termination of tenancy of the petitioner herein/tenant in the demised premises obviously the rate of rent per square feet payable by the lessee therein to his lessor is Rs.40250÷500 Sqft. = 80.50 per square feet. However, the rent aforesaid fetched by premises adjoining the demised premises cannot stand omnibusly applied by this Court in determining use and occupation charges qua the demised premises. = 80.50 per square feet. However, the rent aforesaid fetched by premises adjoining the demised premises cannot stand omnibusly applied by this Court in determining use and occupation charges qua the demised premises. For purveying assistance to this Court in its determining use and occupation charges qua the demised premises on its adopting Annexure A-1 as an apt parameter, the learned counsel for the contesting parties have relied upon a judgement reported in Atma Ram supra relevant paragraph 20 whereof is extracted hereinafter: [20] In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000.00 per month. The Rent Control Tribunal was right in putting the tenant on term of payment of Rs. 15,000.00 per month as charges for use and occupation during the pendency of appeal. The Tribunal took extra care to see that the amount was retained in deposit with it until the appeal was decided so that the amount in deposit could be disbursed by the appellate Court consistently with the opinion formed by it at the end of the appeal. No fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. The High Court has interfered with the impugned order of the Tribunal on an erroneous assumption that any direction for payment by the tenant to the landlord of any amount at any rate above the contractual rate of rent could not have been made. We cannot countenance the view taken by the High Court. We may place on record that it has not been the case of the tenant- respondent before us, nor was it in the High Court, that the amount of Rs. 15,000.00 assessed by the Rent Control Tribunal was unreasonable or grossly on the higher side.” As also upon a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported R.K.Bansal versus Jag Pravesh Sharma [2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 203, the relevant paragraph-4 stands extracted herein-after: “4. 15,000.00 assessed by the Rent Control Tribunal was unreasonable or grossly on the higher side.” As also upon a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported R.K.Bansal versus Jag Pravesh Sharma [2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 203, the relevant paragraph-4 stands extracted herein-after: “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 17100/201 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondentlandlord 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 Rs. 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. 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 Petitionertenant 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.” As theirs constituting the apt parameters for guiding this Court in assessing use and occupation charges payable by the tenants to the landlord qua the demised premises. Given the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram supra wherein qua commercial premises therein as is the demised premises herein with its carrying a covered area of 1000 square feet, the Hon'ble Apex Court while bearing in mind the factum of commercial premises adjoining it carrying a covered area of 2000 square feet and its earning a rent of Rs.3,50,000/- per month upheld the order of the Rent Control Tribunal assessing qua the demised premises therein use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month. In other words, even when the rent earned by commercial premises adjoining the demised commercial premises therein with its carrying a covered an area of 2000 sq.ft was @ 3,50,000/- per mensem or hence when it earned rent @ Rs.175/- per square feet the Hon'ble Apex court upheld the order of the Rent Control Tribunal assessing qua the demised commercial premises therein use and occupation charges at Rs.15,000/- per mensem for a covered area of 1000 square feet or upheld the order of the Rent Control Tribunal assessing qua the demised commercial premises therein use and occupation charges @ Rs.15/- per square feet per mensem. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding the assessment by the learned Tribunal of use and occupation charges per square feet qua the demised commercial premises therein on the anvil of rent per square feet payable qua commercial premises adjoining it hence obviously also upheld the order of the learned Tribunal in its drastically reducing the rent fetched by the premises adjoining the demised commercial premises therein while computing use and occupation charges qua the demised commercial premises therein payable by the tenant therein to his landlord. Nonetheless an expostulation in the afore-referred verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court of quantification of use and occupation charges qua the demised premises being both reasonable and fair apart therefrom any quantification thereof being neither excessive nor punitive is yet to be borne in mind by this Court especially when given the prime location of the demised commercial premises any fullest reliance thereupon may not be apt nor just as it would beget the consequence of this Court assessing qua the demised premises herein use and occupation charges payable qua it by the tenants to the landlords which are grossly disproportionate besides a gross under valuation of the rent earning capacity of the demised commercial premises herein. 5. Both the aforesaid verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court stand relied upon by the landlord relied upon by the landlord for on their anvil his having a tenable right to foster a claim for quantification by this Court of use and occupation charges payable to him by the tenants / petitioners herein qua the demised premises. In the relevant paragraph of the rendition of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court had assessed qua the demised premises therein use and occupation charges payable by the tenant to his landlord at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per mensem even when the landlord therein had staked a claim for use and occupation charges payable qua it to him by the tenant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- per mensem whereas the latter had agreed to pay use and occupation charges qua the demised premises to him quantified at Rs.10,000/- per mensem. A reading of the hereinabove extracted relevant apt paragraphs of the judgement of the Apex Court make a vivid disclosure of it having not embarked upon any detailed inquiry embedded upon any apposite material for it to conclude therein of the tenant therein being liable to pay to his landlord use and occupation charges qua the demised premises therein quantified at Rs.25,000/- per mensem. Even in the absence of any apposite material existing before the Hon'ble Apex Court it yet halved the use and occupation charges claimed qua the demised premises by the landlord from his tenant. Tritely with the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Atma Ram supra relevant paragraphs whereof stand extracted hereinabove having upheld the drastic reduction meted by the learned Tribunal vis.a.vis the rent earned by premises adjoining the demised premises therein in hence coming to quantify qua the demised premises therein use and occupation charges payable qua it by the tenant to his landlord yet the gross besides a drastic reduction meted by the learned Tribunal qua the rent earned by the premises adjoining the demised premises therein whereupon it computed use and occupation charges qua the demised premises therein may not aid this Court in quantifying use and occupation charges payable by the petitioners herein to the landlords qua the demised premises herein especially when the demised premises herein exist in a prime commercial locale of Shimla whereof use and occupation charges necessarily ought to bear a semblance of hence theirs both being fair, reasonable besides compatible to the commercial locale where the demised commercial premises exist. Even the computation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict reported in 2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 203, of use and occupation charges qua the demised premises therein being not hinged or harboured upon any apposite material for hence the quantification by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein of use and occupation charges payable by the tenant to his landlord qua the demised premises therein purveying inflexible guidance to this Court especially when for reasons meted hereinabove the arrival of the sum therein payable as use and occupation charges by the tenant therein to his landlord qua the demised premises therein was on its merely halving the claim reared by the landlord qua use and occupation charges from his tenant qua the demised premises therein. As a corollary even the quantification of use and occupation charges therein by the Hon'ble Apex court qua the demised premises therein when stood not embedded upon any tangible material before it for constituting any assessment therein of use and occupation charges by it qua the demised premises acquiring a sinewed ratio decidendi necessarily no inflexible guidance emanates therefrom for its adoption by this Court in assessing use and occupation charges payable by the tenants to the landlords qua the demised premises herein. In view of the aforestated parameters adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its afore referred verdicts not purveying any rigid or inflexible formula for adoption by this Court in quantifying use and occupation charges payable qua the demised premises by the tenant/tenants to the landlord/landlords, this Court has to yet given the location of the demised premises herein in a prime commercial locale ensure its judicial determination of use and occupation charges qua it, being both reasonable as well as just besides in commensuration to its commercial locale. Apart therefrom this Court has to bear in mind its judicial determination of use and occupation charges qua the demised premises being shorn off any semblance of it being either punitive or its being in gross disproportion viz.a.viz the contractual rent qua it. Even in the above exercise the gross distinctivity intra se the halving of by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict rendered in 2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 203 of use and occupation charges from the one claimed by its landlord to the one determined payable qua the demised premises therein by the tenant therein to his landlord vis.a.vis. the drastic reduction as meted by the learned Tribunal inter se the rent fetched by premises adjoining the demised commercial premises therein in hence rendering a determination qua use and occupation charges payable by the tenant to his landlord qua the demised premises therein especially when hence its determination stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgement reported in Atma Ram (Supra) does only add to the difficulty of this Court in assessing a fair and just sum of money payable as use and occupation charges by the tenants to their landlords bereft of any element of any gross under valuation thereof or its being punitive. However, the difficulty can be over come in case this Court proceeds to adopt the golden rule of balancing both the above referred verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The balance would be struck in case less than halving of the rent enunciated in Annexure A-1 appended to CMP No.9910 of 2015 stands adopted as the formula for thereupon assessing use and occupation charges payable by the tenants to the landlords qua the demised premises herein especially when the adoption of the above formula would not beget any drastic reduction viz.a.viz the portrayals in Annexure A-1 with a quantification by this Court of use and occupation charges qua the demised premises. Naturally then a reduction of 70% from the rate of rent of Rs.80.50 per square feet payable qua premises adjoining the demised premises is both sagacious besides would be reasonable for adoption for assessing use and occupation charges qua the demised premises carrying a carpet area of 5600 square feet. On adoption of the aforesaid method/formula the use and occupation charges payable by the tenants to the landlords qua the demised premises stand assessed in a sum of Rs.1,35,240/- per mensem. Apart therefrom the aforesaid amount would not be punitive arising from its being grossly disproportionate to the contractual rate of rent qua the demised premises constituted in a sum of Rs. 14,908/-. On the other hand it would be a just as well as a reasonable determination of use and occupation charges payable qua the demised premises by the tenants to the landlords. The applications are disposed of in the following terms: w.e.f. 7.3.2012, i.e. the date of rendition of a decree of eviction by the Rent Controller, IV, Shimla of the tenants/petitioners herein from the demised premises, upto 31.12.2015 the tenants shall be liable to pay or deposit use and occupation charges qua the demised premises to the landlords in the sum of Rs.1,35,240/- per mensem. On the amount aforesaid standing deposited within one month in the Registry of this Court an FDR in the name of the Registrar General shall be drawn which shall be renewable after six months. However, its disbursement shall be subject to the final out come of the instant revision petition. On the amount aforesaid standing deposited within one month in the Registry of this Court an FDR in the name of the Registrar General shall be drawn which shall be renewable after six months. However, its disbursement shall be subject to the final out come of the instant revision petition. w.e.f. 1st January, 2016 the tenants shall continue to pay or deposit use and occupation charges qua the demised premises in the Registry of this Court comprised in a sum of Rs.1,35,240/- by the 15th day of every month. The aforesaid amount on standing deposited in the Registry of this Court an FDR in the name of the Registrar General shall be drawn which shall be renewable after six months. However, its disbursement shall be subject to the final outcome of the revision petition. While depositing the entire aforesaid sums the petitioners herein shall be entitled to claim adjustment qua contractual rate of rent if already paid qua the demised premises to the respondents herein/landlords. 6. In case the petitioners herein/tenants in the demised premises omit to comply with the hereinabove enumerated conditions then the ad-interim order of this Court temporarily staying the operation of the rendition of a decree of their eviction from the demised premises by the Appellate Authority- (IV), Shimla, shall stand automatically vacated and it shall be open to the respondents/landlords to forthwith launch proceedings in the competent Court for execution of the decree of eviction of the petitioners herein/tenants from the demised premises. However, in case the petitioner herein/tenants comply with the hereinabove imposed conditions, the ad-interim order of this Court temporarily staying the order of eviction of the tenants/petitioners herein from the demised premises shall become absolute.