Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 268 (PNJ)

Varinder Kumar Saini v. Ram Lubhaya

2018-01-19

AJAY TEWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajay Tewari, J. CM-24144-CII-2016 Exemption application is allowed as prayed for. CM-24145-CII-2016 2. This is an application for adjudging the charges for use and occupation of the premises. Initially, the tenant was held liable for eviction on 9.2.2011. Therefore, it has to be held that he may be in wrongful occupation of the premises since that date and consequently, this Court has to determine what would be the charges for use and occupation as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of "M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005(1) RCR (Rent) 1" and the judgment of this Court in the matter of "Angoori Devi and others v. Smt. Satya Bhama, 2016 (5)RCR (civil) 1043". The applicant-landlord has placed on record a lease deed dated 5.2.2014. However, counsel for the non-applicant-tenant points out that premises is on the main Nakodar Road while the shop in dispute is on a subsidiary road. Counsel for the applicant is not in a position to deny this fact. Resultantly, it has to be held that that lease deed may not be relevant for fixing the approximate rental value of the property in dispute as on 9.2.2011. On the other hand, counsel for the non-applicant tenant has placed on record two rent notes of adjoining premises. However those two are very far removed in time, one being of the year 1992 and the other of the year 1998. Their relevance is also doubtful. None disputed that the premises were taken on rent about thirty years ago @ Rs. 800/-. In this situation where there is no clarity, the Court has to rely on rule of the thumb to balance the equities. Keeping in this in mind, I deem it appropriate to fix the charges for occupation @ Rs. 7000/- per month over and above the contractual rent. The arrears will be restricted to three years prior to the date of application. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the non-applicant states that this would result in a huge liability and therefore, seeks time to deposit the arrears. I find it to be a fair request. Consequently, six months time is granted to the non-applicant to deposit the arrears up to February, 2018 before the Executing Court. The Executing Court shall put the same in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. I find it to be a fair request. Consequently, six months time is granted to the non-applicant to deposit the arrears up to February, 2018 before the Executing Court. The Executing Court shall put the same in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. As regards the future charges (with effect from March, 2018 onwards) let the same be deposited with the Executing Court on or before 7th of every month in advance. The Executing Court is directed to put the same in a recurring deposit in any nationalized bank. The deposit annured benefits would await the decision of the Court. Application stands disposed of. CR-4742-2014 3. Admitted. 4. Since the premises in question were sought on the ground of personal necessity, Registry is directed to list this case for hearing in the opening of the year 2020.