ORDER : 1. By way of instant application, filed under S. 151 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/respondent to issue directions to the non-applicant/petitioner No. 1 to pay the use and occupation charges qua the demised premises, which are being occupied by him despite there being eviction order passed by competent court of law. 2. For having bird’s eye view of the matter, facts shorn of unnecessary details are that one late Smt. Chander Kanta, mother of the applicant/respondent Randeep Singh Parmar, filed a rent petition under S.14 of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter, ‘Act’), seeking eviction of the non-applicants/petitioners from Shop No. 33 measuring 290 square feet, The Mall, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘demised premises’). Since said Smt. Chander Kanta expired during the pendency of the eviction petition, applicant/respondent namely Shri Randeep Singh Parmar came to be brought on record as petitioner in the eviction proceedings. Respondent sought eviction of the nonapplicants/ petitioners from the demised premises on the ground that presently the demised premises is under the sub tenant and Shambhoo Nath is residing out of Shimla and has ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for 12 months prior to filing petition. Petitioner claimed that the demised premises were let out to Shambhu Nath in 1955 on monthly rent of Rs.1800/- inclusive of taxes but now he has sub let the demised premise to respondent No.2 Sunil Dutt, who has made extensive construction, alterations and additions to the demised premises. Besides above, applicant/respondent also claimed that petitioner No.1 after commencement of the Act has ceased to occupy the demised premises for continuous 12 months prior to filing of the eviction petition without there being any reasonable or sufficient cause and as such he is liable to be evicted. 3. While refuting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of applicant/respondent, non-applicants/petitioners claimed in the reply that the petition is actuated with malafide intention to oust them from the demised premises and to increase the rent. On merit, non- applicants/petitioners admitted that late Chander Kanta was the landlady of the demised premises and respondent No.1 Shambhu Nath was tenant over demised premises and the demised premises are non-residential i.e. shop. On merit, non- applicants/petitioners admitted that late Chander Kanta was the landlady of the demised premises and respondent No.1 Shambhu Nath was tenant over demised premises and the demised premises are non-residential i.e. shop. While specifically refuting that petitioner No.1 has sublet the demised premises to petitioner No.2, Sunil Dutt, they also denied that petitioner No.2 being sub tenant has made extensive construction, alterations and additions to the demised premises. 4. Learned Rent Controller taking note of the aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by parties to the lis framed issues and thereafter vide order dated 28.2.2017, while partly allowing the eviction petition, held that petitioner No.1 has ceased to occupy the demised premises for 12 months without any sufficient reasons and grounds. Learned Rent Controller below also held that petitioner No.1 has sublet the demised premises to petitioner No.2 without the knowledge and consent of the applicant/respondent and as such, petitioners are liable to be evicted from the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller below directed the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the applicant/respondent, within a period of two months, however dismissed the petition for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of arrears of rent. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid eviction order, petitioners filed an appeal under S. 24(1) of the Act before Appellate Authority, Shimla, i.e. Rent Appeal No. 22-S/14 of 2017, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.4.2018, as a consequence of which, eviction order passed by learned Rent Controller, on the ground of ceased to occupy, came to be upheld. Petitioners now have laid challenge to the judgment dated 24.4.2018 passed by the appellate authority by way of civil revision filed under S.24(5) of the Act in this Court. Vide order dated 29.11.2018, operation and execution of impugned order passed by learned Rent Controller was stayed by this Court. 6. In the pending civil revision, respondent filed instant application seeking direction to petitioner No.1 to pay the use and occupation charges qua the demised premises. Applicant/respondent averred in the application that though both the learned courts below. have concurrently ordered for eviction of the non-applicant/petitioner No.1 from the demised premises on the ground of ceased to occupy, but yet petitioners are desperate to delay the execution of eviction order with ulterior motives. Applicant/respondent averred in the application that though both the learned courts below. have concurrently ordered for eviction of the non-applicant/petitioner No.1 from the demised premises on the ground of ceased to occupy, but yet petitioners are desperate to delay the execution of eviction order with ulterior motives. It is claimed that qua the shop No. 33 situate at Mall Road, the rent payable by the non-applicant/petitioner No.1 till the date of passing of order dated 28.2.2017 was less than Rs. 2,000/- per month but now since status of non-applicant/petitioner No.1 after 2.2.2018 is that of unauthorized occupants, they are liable to pay use and occupation charges at prevalent market rate with effect from 1.3.2017 till the date petitioner No.1 occupies the demised premises as unauthorized occupant. With a view to prove the market rent in the vicinity of the demised premises, applicant/respondent placed on record lease dated 4.9.2014 executed between landlord and tenant in respect of shop No. 37 measuring 420 square feet. As per this lease deed rent for the aforesaid shop was fixed Rs. 2,10,000/- for first three years from 14.9.2014 to 13.9.2017 and presently the same is Rs.2,41,500/- per month. Applicant/respondent also averred in the application that shop No. 37 is just three shops away from the shop in question, as such, in terms of lease deed, present rent of demised premises is Rs. 575/- per square feet. Apart from above, applicant/respondent also placed on record license deed dated 12.4.2018 qua shop No. 76, measuring 296 square feet, perusal whereof reveals that said shop No. 76, The Mall, Shimla has been leased for 9 years for Rs. 2 lakh for first three years, for Rs. 2,30,000 for next three year and Rs.2,60,000 for the last three years. 7. It may be apt to take note of the fact that during the pendency of the revision petition petitioner No.1 Shabhoo Nath expired on 7.8.2019 and vide order dated 19.11.2021 passed in CMP(M) No. 1805 of 2019, petitioner No.2 has been brought on record as his legal representative and now there is only one petitioner i.e. Sunil Dutt, but for the sake clarity, parties are being referred to in this order, as per their original status in the revision petition. 8. Placing reliance upon aforesaid lease deeds, applicant/respondent claimed that on account of unauthorized occupation of the nonapplicants/ petitioners, applicant/respondent is being put to loss of Rs. 8. Placing reliance upon aforesaid lease deeds, applicant/respondent claimed that on account of unauthorized occupation of the nonapplicants/ petitioners, applicant/respondent is being put to loss of Rs. 2.00 Lakh per month and as such, non-applicant/petitioner No.1 is liable to pay use and occupation charges of Rs. 2.00 Lakh from the date he occupied the demised premises unauthorizedly. 9. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of applicant/respondent came to be refuted by way of reply to the application, wherein nonapplicants/ petitioners claimed that since occupation of tenant has not become unauthorized within the meaning of the Act, after passing of impugned eviction order, present application is not maintainable and as such, deserves to be dismissed. Besides above, it has been further averred that the definition of ‘tenant’ as provided under S. 2(j) in the Act nowhere provides that on passing of eviction order, possession of tenant qua demised premises will become unauthorized rather as per definition of tenant, “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a residential or non-residential building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy. 10. While refuting the claim of applicant/respondent that he is entitled to use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 2.00 Lakh per month, non-applicants/petitioners have averred in the reply that use and occupation charges of demised premises is not more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. With a view to substantiate aforesaid claim, nonapplicants/ petitioners have placed reliance upon order dated 11.3.2015 passed by this Court, whereby use and occupation charges of shop No. 20, The Mall Shimla has been assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per month. Besides above, non-applicant/petitioner also placed reliance upon orders dated 17.9.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 61 of 2014, wherein use and occupation charges came to be fixed at Rs. 9,015 qua shop No. 20, The Mall, Shimla. 11. Though the non-applicant/petitioner No.1 has not been able to dispute the claim of the applicant/respondent with regard to licence/lease deeds, Annexures A-1 and A-2 qua Shop Nos. 37 and 76, The Mall, Shimla, but has stated that applicant/respondent No.1 being 90 years old person is not having financial capacity to pay the rent as is being claimed at the rate of Rs.2.00 Lakh per month. It has been further stated that rent of Rs. 37 and 76, The Mall, Shimla, but has stated that applicant/respondent No.1 being 90 years old person is not having financial capacity to pay the rent as is being claimed at the rate of Rs.2.00 Lakh per month. It has been further stated that rent of Rs. 575/- per square feet is neither legal nor proper keeping in view location, area and width of frontage of demised premises in occupation of non-applicant/petitioner No.1 and there is no question of comparison of the demised premises with the shops as stated above. 12. Mr. Ashok Sood, learned senior counsel representing the nonapplicant/ petitioner vehemently argued that bare perusal of S.24(5) of the Act nowhere provides, condition if any for depositing use and occupation charges for staying the execution of the eviction order. He further stated that otherwise also, non-applicants/petitioners cannot be held to be unauthorized occupants of demised premises especially in view of the plea taken by applicant/respondent that the non-applicant/petitioner No.1 has sublet the premises in favour of non-applicant/petitioner No.2, He further argued that the definition of ‘tenant’ as given in S.2(j) of the Act nowhere suggests that on passing of eviction order against tenant, his occupation becomes unauthorized and he would not be treated as ‘tenant’ under the Act. Mr. Sood further argued that since civil revision having been filed by non-applicants/petitioners laying therein challenge to order passed by learned Rent Controller and judgment passed by appellate authority is pending adjudication, non-applicants/petitioners cannot be held to be in unauthorized occupation of the demised premises, which have been otherwise ordered to be evicted on the ground of ceased to occupy. While inviting attention of this Court to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ama Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 , Mr. Sood attempted to carve out a case that in the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has considered definition of ‘tenant’ as provided in Delhi Rent Control Act and Madhya Pradesh Rent Control Act wherein it is provided that tenant against whom eviction order is passed will not remain tenant under landlord and his occupation will become unauthorized. Sood attempted to carve out a case that in the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has considered definition of ‘tenant’ as provided in Delhi Rent Control Act and Madhya Pradesh Rent Control Act wherein it is provided that tenant against whom eviction order is passed will not remain tenant under landlord and his occupation will become unauthorized. He submitted that definition of ‘tenant’ as given in S.2(j) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, nowhere provides that a person against whom eviction order is passed will not remain tenant under the landlord and his occupation becomes unauthorized with the passing of eviction order. Lastly, Mr. Sood contended that otherwise also, use and occupation charges being claimed by the applicant/respondent at the rate of Rs.2.00 Lakh are on higher side, especially when rent qua similar shops in the same vicinity is on lower side, as has been stated in the reply. 13. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate argued that since the nonapplicant/ petitioner No.1 has ceased to be tenant of demised premises with the passing of impugned order by learned Rent Controller, which has been upheld by appellate authority and still he is/they are holding possession of property non-applicant/petitioner No.1 is liable to pay the use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 2.00 Lakh per month from 1.3.2017 i.e. date of passing of the eviction order. While placing heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram supra and judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Champeshwar Lall Sood & Anr V/s Sh. Gurpartap Singh & Ors, reported in Latest HLJ 2017 (HP) 589, Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel argued that Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of the fact that landlord-tenant litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can thereby afford to perpetuate the life of litigation and continue in occupation of the premises, has held the tenants liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the same rate at which he would have paid even otherwise by way of rent. 14. While refuting the submissions made by Mr. 14. While refuting the submissions made by Mr. Sood, learned senior counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner that in Atma Ram supra, Hon'ble Apex Court specifically dealt with definition of ‘tenant’ as provided under the Delhi Act, Mr. Gupta argued that though before Hon'ble Apex Court, Delhi Rent Control Act was in question but findings with regard to liability to pay use and occupation charges by a person, who has ceased to be tenant on account of passing of eviction order are binding and relevant for considering prayer made on behalf of the landlords for payment of use and occupation charges, by the person who has ceased to be tenant on account of passing of eviction order in eviction proceedings under Urban Rent Control Act. Lastly, Mr. Gupta, while making this court peruse lease deeds placed on record with regard to rent being charged by landlords of the shops in the vicinity of the demised premises, strenuously argued that since the shop of the applicant/respondent on in the heart of the Mall Road, he has rightly claimed use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.2.00 Lakh per month. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties. 16. Since it has been claimed by the non-applicants/petitioners that they have not ceased to be tenants, after passing of eviction order and as such, are not liable to pay use and occupation charges during the pendency of the civil revision before this court, the first and the foremost question which needs to be decided in the application is, “whether this Court has jurisdiction to direct the tenant to pay use and occupation charges qua the demised premises during the pendency of the revision and whether the non-applicants/petitioners are entitled to claim themselves to be tenants qua demised premises after passing of eviction order by the learned Rent Controller or not? 17. 17. Careful perusal of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram (supra) would reveal that following questions arose for its consideration: “(i) in respect of premises enjoying the protection of rent control legislation, when does the tenancy terminate; and (ii) upto what point of time the tenant is liable to pay rent at the contractual rate and when does he become liable to pay to the landlord compensation for use and occupation of the tenancy premises unbound by the contractual rate of rent?” 18. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court specifically referred to provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, and held that the appellate court does have the jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms, as would, in its opinion, reasonably compensate the decree-holder for the loss occasioned on account of 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. The conclusions were summed up by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following terms: “To sum up, our conclusions are:- (1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 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 decree-holder 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 clause (l) of Section 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. 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.” 19. In case the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (supra) is read in its entirety, it is clearly elicited that the rationale, for directing the tenant to pay use and occupation charges, is that there was a need to deter the tenant from perpetuating the life of litigation and thereby depriving the landlord of the fruits of litigation, even if successful. 20. The main argument of Mr. Ashok Sood, learned counsel representing the tenant, is that the aforesaid observations came to be made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram (supra) in view of specific definition of ‘tenant’ contained in Delhi Urban Rent Control Act, as such, much emphasis can not be laid on the same, while deciding the case at hand, which is governed by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. Mr. Sood, further contended that, in case of the Delhi Act, ‘tenant’ does not include a person against whom, an order/decree of eviction has been passed as provided under S.2(1)(ii) thereof, whereas, under Section 2(j) of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, ‘tenant’ means a person, by whom or on whose account, rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant in continued possession after termination of tenancy in his favour. Mr. Sood further contended that the aforesaid definition of ‘tenant’ clearly suggests that the tenancy of a tenant does not terminate after termination of tenancy. ‘Tenant” in the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act is defined as under: “Section 2. Definitions .. .. Mr. Sood further contended that the aforesaid definition of ‘tenant’ clearly suggests that the tenancy of a tenant does not terminate after termination of tenancy. ‘Tenant” in the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act is defined as under: “Section 2. Definitions .. .. (j) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy and in the event of the death of such person such of his heirs as are mentioned in Schedule-I to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified, respectively in Explanation-I and Explanation-II to this clause, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building of rented land by its tenant, except with the written consent of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a municipal corporation or a municipal committee or a notified area committee or a cantonment board’;” 21. Hence, this court is not persuaded to agree with the aforesaid contention of Mr. Sood, because careful perusal of definition of ‘tenant’, as given in Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, suggests that it does not include a person, continuing in possession after order of ejectment is passed against him/her. Otherwise also, very object of payment of damages/compensation, as has been stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (supra), is to deter a tenant from perpetuating the life of litigation, as such, once this is the object, argument having been advanced by Mr. Sood that since observations/findings came to be made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (supra) in terms of S.38(3) of Delhi Urban Rent Control Act, ratio of the same can not be applied in the case at hand, cannot be accepted because in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the rationale for providing compensation for use and occupation charges in favour of the landlords, is to deter the tenant from perpetuating life of litigation. 22. 22. Otherwise also, in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has candidly held that the tenant having suffered decree /order of eviction, may continue his fight before the superior forum but, on the termination of proceedings and the decree or order of eviction first passed having been terminated, tenancy stands terminated from the date of decree passed by lower forum. 23. Hon'ble Apex Court in Martin & Harris Private Limited v. Rajendra Mehta, reported in SCC OnLine SC 792, while following judgment rendered in Atma Ram supra, has held as under: “12. Now, reverting on the issue of determination of the amount of mesne profits @ Rs.2,50,000/ per month is concerned, the guidance may be taken from the judgment of Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and Another – (1999) 2 SCC 325 , in which this Court held that once a decree for possession has been passed and the execution is delayed depriving the decree holder to reap the fruits, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders fixing reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent required to be paid by a person who is holding over the property. In the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. – (2005) 1 SCC 705 , this Court held that Appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in its opinion reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree while granting the stay. The Court relying upon the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, observed that on passing the decree for eviction by a competent Court, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profit or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have able to let out the premises in present and earn the profit if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The Court has explained that because of pendency of the appeal, which may be in continuation of suit, the doctrine of merger does not have 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 later date. 13. The Court has explained that because of pendency of the appeal, which may be in continuation of suit, the doctrine of merger does not have 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 later date. 13. Thus, after passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises. The view taken in the case of Atma Ram (supra) has been reaffirmed in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others (2009) 9 SCC 772 by three Judges Bench of this Court. Therefore, looking to the fact that the decree of eviction passed by Trial Court on 03.03.2016 has been confirmed in appeal; against which second appeal is pending, however, after stay on being asked the direction to pay mesne profits or compensation issued by the High Court is in consonance to the law laid down by this Court, which is just equitable and reasonable. 14. The basis of determination of the amount of mesne profit, in our view, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case considering place where the property is situated i.e. village or city or metropolitan city, location, nature of premises i.e. commercial or residential are and the rate of rent precedent on which premises can be let out are the guiding factor in the facts of individual case. In the case at hand, the High Court in the impugned order observed that the tenanted property is located on the main road of New Colony near Panch Batti which is a commercial area in the heart of Jaipur City. The said finding has been arrived considering the voluminous documentary record dispelling the plea taken by the Appellants. However, the Court in the facts and circumstances found it reasonable to determine Rs.2,50,000/- per month as mesne profit. As per the discussion made hereinabove so far as the area of the tenanted premises and the location of the property is concerned, the findings of fact have been recorded by the High Court, in our considered opinion, those findings are based on the material brought on record which are neither perverse nor illegal. As per the discussion made hereinabove so far as the area of the tenanted premises and the location of the property is concerned, the findings of fact have been recorded by the High Court, in our considered opinion, those findings are based on the material brought on record which are neither perverse nor illegal. The amount of mesne profit as fixed @ Rs.2,50,000/- is also just and proper looking at the span of time i.e. 10 years from the date of fixing of the standard rent and six year from the date of passing of the decree of eviction. Therefore, the amount of mesne profit has rightly been decided by the High Court while passing the order impugned. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, in our considered opinion, the order fixing the mesne profit and the order passed on the review petition, filed by the Appellants, are just and proper which do not warrant any interference. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed.” 24. Taking cue from judgment in Atma Ram supra, A coordinate Bench of this court in Sh. Champeshwar Lall Sood & Anr V/s Sh. Gurpartap Singh & Ors, reported in Latest HLJ 2017 (HP) 589, has held as under: “13. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that the courts after passing of an order of eviction can always put the occupant of the premises to terms including payment of mesne profit. The very purpose of awarding mesne profit or use and occupation charges is to put a check on the diabolical plans of the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted and ensure that he does not squat on the premises by paying a meager rent. At the same time even the landlord is also compensated to receive higher rent than the contractual rent. 14. In Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has been clearly laid down that the tenant with the passing of the decree of eviction is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation charges of the premises at the same rate on which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. 15. 15. Likewise, in Marshals Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. (supra), it was categorically held that once a decree for possession has been passed and execution is delayed depriving the judgment-creditor of the fruits of decree, it is necessary for the Court to pass appropriate orders so that ‘reasonable’ mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. 16. At the same time, it was also held that while fixing the amount, subject to payment of which the execution of the order/decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. 17. What is ‘reasonable’ is difficult to define and this expression being a relative term is required to be considered vis- à-vis, the fact situation obtaining in a particular case. A three Hon’ble Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rena Drego (Mrs) vs. Lalchand Soni and others (1998) 3 SCC 341 , considered the expression ‘reasonable’ in the following terms:- [9] It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'. It is often said that "an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word 'reasonable' is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space." The author of 'Words and Phrases" (Permanent Edition) has quoted from In re Nice and Schreiber, 123 F, 987, 999 to give a plausible meaning for the said word. He says "the expression 'reasonable' is a relative term, and the facts of the particular controversy must be considered before the question as to what constitutes reasonable can be determined." It is not meant to be expedient or convenient but certainly something more than that. While interpreting the word 'reasonable' in Section 13 of the Act, the Bombay High Court has suggested in Krishchand Moorjimal v. Bai Kalavati, AIR 1973 Bombay 46, "that the word 'reasonable' cannot mean convenient or luxurious, though it may not necessarily exclude the idea of convenience and comfort." However, the expression reasonable can be taken as providing an angle which is conformable or agreeable to reasons, having regard to the facts of the particular controversy. [10] In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497 : ( AIR 1987 SC 2316 ), this Court has stated that "the word 'reasonable' has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called upon to act reasonably, knows or ought to know." This has been reiterated by Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) P. Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 532 : ( AIR 1989 SC 973 ). 18. The expression reasonable again came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 . It was held as under:- “[8] The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 2258 states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word "reasonable'. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy. (See: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another (1987) 4 SCC 497 . and Gujarat Water Supplies and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. and another [ (1989) 1 SCC 532 ]. [9] It is often said "an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word 'reasonable' is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space". The author of 'Words and Phrases' (Permanent Edition) has quoted from in re Nice & Schreiber 123 F. 987, 988 to give a plausible meaning for the said word. He says, "the expression 'reasonable' is a relative term, and the facts of the particular controversy must be considered before the question as to what constitutes reasonable can be determined". It is not meant to be expedient or convenient but certainly something more than that. [10] The word 'reasonable' signifies "in accordance with reason". He says, "the expression 'reasonable' is a relative term, and the facts of the particular controversy must be considered before the question as to what constitutes reasonable can be determined". It is not meant to be expedient or convenient but certainly something more than that. [10] The word 'reasonable' signifies "in accordance with reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another v. Kamla Mills Ltd. (2003) 6 SCC 315 ).” 19. Even otherwise the expression ‘reasonable’ would only mean “rational according to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderate”. An act is said to be reasonable when it is conformable or agreeable to reason, having regard to the facts of the particular controversy. In other words ‘reasonable’ would mean what is just, fair and equitable in contradiction to anything whimsical, capricious etc. The word ‘reasonable’ has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word ‘reasonable’. The reason varies in its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veerayee Ammal vs. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134 . 20. Therefore, the term ‘reasonable’, as has been used by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court is required to be interpreted in a manner so as to ensure that the landlord is reasonably compensated for the loss occurred by the delay in execution of the decree by grant of stay order. The rent has to be determined on case to case basis depending upon the cogent material placed on record by the parties and would therefore, normally be dependent upon the occupation, trade or business etc. of the tenant and would further not be dependent solely on the capacity to pay or actual earning of the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction. 21. of the tenant and would further not be dependent solely on the capacity to pay or actual earning of the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction. 21. The fixation of mesne profits and use and occupation charges are to be assessed on the basis of the evidence led by the parties as to the prima facie market value existing at the time of admission of the appeal after the eviction order, which has been exclusively bestowed on the landlord so that he would be able to reasonably compensate for loss caused by delay in execution of the decree by grant of stay order. The Court while doing so is not to be guided by the factors that the parties at one point of time while creating the tenancy had agreed at a meager amount of rent, it would depend upon the material produced before the Court which under no circumstances can be ignored even though thereafter the rent so fixed may work out to be multiple times to the one which was fixed at the time of creation of the tenancy. 22. Noticeably, even the tenant had not disputed the agreement entered between one of the landlord with Bata India Ltd., before the appellate authority wherein the rent fixed works out to Rs. 295.56 paise per sq. feet and with the increase contemplated in the agreement, the same on the date of admission of the appeal was @ Rs. 325/- per sq. feet. 23. The agreement reveals that the rentals therein have been fixed for two premises i.e. 42, the Mall, Shimla and 14/1, Middle Bazaar, Shimla. From the photographs appended alongwith the petition filed by the landlord being Civil Revision Petition No. 212 of 2016, which have not even being disputed by the tenant, the premise No. 42 is admittedly located on the prime location i.e. Mall Road, Shimla, whereas the premise No. 14/1 is sandwiched between the premises let out to the tenant and premise No. 42 is approachable only through the narrow lane of about three feet. Therefore, obviously, the rental of these properties would be presumed to be worked out after taking into consideration the comparative advantage and disadvantages of both the premises. 24. Therefore, obviously, the rental of these properties would be presumed to be worked out after taking into consideration the comparative advantage and disadvantages of both the premises. 24. So far as the premises which are in possession of the tenant are concerned, the same admittedly are situated on the main Middle Bazaar, at the heart of Shimla town which over the years have now been come to be reckoned as ‘Middle Mall’ and is one of the important hub of business activity and has great commercial potential though less than that of the premises located on the Mall Road. 25. Therefore, the fixation of the monthly rental of Rs.12,000/- per month by the learned first appellate Court, even after concluding that the premises in question are in heart of the city is obviously erroneous because such rental is based upon the alleged earning of the tenant instead of the same being based upon the prima facie market rent that the landlord would have been able to let out on vacation by the tenant at the time of the admission of the appeal after eviction order. Moreover, once the Court has before it a lease deed of the premises which pertains to a part of the same building then it will not normally be wise, safe or prudent to rely upon any other document like rent deed of the so called adjoining premises in the vicinity to work out the prima facie market rent.” 25. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Marshall Sons and Co.(I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and another (1999) 2 SCC 325 has categorically held that that once a decree for possession has been passed and execution is delayed depriving the judgment-creditor of the fruits of decree, it is necessary for the Court to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent are paid by a person, who is holding over the property. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that, while fixing rent, court would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that, while fixing rent, court would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Rena Drego (Mrs) vs. Lalchand Soni and others (1998) 3 SCC 341 , while interpreting the expression, ‘reasonable’ observed that it is difficult to give an exact definition of the word 'reasonable', however, expression, ‘reasonable’ can be taken as providing an angle which is conformable or agreeable to reasons, having regard to the facts of the particular controversy. Subsequently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 , while interpreting the expression, ‘reasonable’ ruled that the word ‘reasonable’ has, in law, prima facie, meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that it may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word ‘reasonable’ and expression 'reasonable' is a relative term, and the facts of the particular controversy must be considered before the question as to what constitutes reasonable can be determined. Word/expression, ‘reasonable’ signifies “in accordance with reason”, therefore, coordinate Bench of this court, while taking note of the various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, while pronouncing judgment in Champeshwar Lall Sood (supra) rightly held that the term, ‘reasonable’ as has been used by Hon'ble Apex Court and this court is required to be interpreted in the manner, so as to ensure that the landlord is reasonably compensated for the loss occurred by delay in execution of decree on account of stay order. Rent is to be determined on ‘case to case’ basis, depending upon cogent material placed on record by the parties. 26. Careful perusal of exposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court clearly reveals that tenant cannot claim himself/herself to be tenant qua the premises in question after passing of eviction order and courts after passing of eviction order can always put the tenant of premises to terms of mesne profits. Though Mr. 26. Careful perusal of exposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court clearly reveals that tenant cannot claim himself/herself to be tenant qua the premises in question after passing of eviction order and courts after passing of eviction order can always put the tenant of premises to terms of mesne profits. Though Mr. Sood learned senior counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners argued that finding returned by Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram supra is with regard to definition of ‘tenant’ as provided under Delhi Rent Control Act but if judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram supra is read in its entirety, it clearly talks about tenants who despite having been ordered to be evicted leave no stone unturned to defeat the rightful claim of the landlord by filling appeals, revisions etc. In the aforesaid judgment. 27. Since it is not in dispute that learned Rent Controller has held non-applicants/ petitioners liable to be evicted from demised premises on the ground of ceased to occupy and such order has been further upheld by appellate authority, non-applicants/petitioners cannot be permitted to claim themselves to be tenants because as has been held in Atma Ram supra, tenancy terminates with the passing of eviction order. Once, tenancy is terminated and yet tenant continues to be in possession of demised premises, he is liable to pay use and occupation charges/mesne profits qua the premises in question. 28. As per aforesaid law taken into consideration applicant/respondent is well within his right to claim use and occupation charges qua the demised premises from the date of passing of eviction order till the non-applicants/ petitioners (tenant) continue to retain the possession of the demised premises in the capacity of unauthorized occupants. Since the tenancy of non-applicants/petitioners has terminated with the passing of the eviction order and the civil revision having been filed by the non-applicants/ petitioners laying therein challenge to judgment passed by appellate authority upholding the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller, is pending adjudication, the question further needs to be determined in the instant proceedings is, “whether use and occupation charges being claimed at the rate of Rs.2.00 Lakh per month are reasonable or on higher side?” 29. If the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Champeshwar Lall Sood supra, is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that the use and occupation charges should commensurate with the amount which landlord would have fetched, had the tenant vacated the premises. 30. In the case at hand, it has been specifically claimed by the applicant/respondent that market rate in the vicinity of shop in question is at the rate of Rs.2,41,500/- per month to Rs. 2,60,000/- per month, as is evident from lease deeds, Annexures A-1 and A-2. Since lease deeds placed on record by applicant/respondent have not been disputed by the non-applicants/petitioners, this court has no reason to discard the same. Non-applicants/petitioners have nowhere disputed the lease deeds placed on record, but have claimed that he is unable to pay the claimed amount of use and occupation charges being an old person. 31. Though non-applicants/petitioners have claimed that the demised premises are not in the vicinity of Shop Nos. 37 and 76, the Mall Road, Shimla, but such plea being factually incorrect deserves outright rejection. This court can take judicial note of the fact that demised premises i.e. Shop No. 33 is in the heart of the Mall Road and if such premises are leased/rented in the open market to some multi-national /big brands as have been leased out by landowners of the properties in the vicinity, he would have fetched much more price as is being offered by the non-applicants/ petitioners. 32. Lease deeds Annexures A-1 and A-2, clearly reveal that Shop Nos. 37 and 76, the Mall, Shimla have been leased/rented at the rate of more than Rs.2.00 Lakh per month and as per lease deed, amount shall be further enhanced after specific period of two/three years. 33. Interestingly, in the case at hand, record of learned courts below reveals that the applicant/respondent executed agreement dated 18.3.2008 (page 255) qua the demised premises with third party holding that demised premises can be rented out for minimum, of Rs. 1.50 Lakh per month. Though aforesaid document has been disputed by Mr. Sood, learned senior counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners but execution of same stands proved by one Anil Kumar, as RPW-1/J at page No. 418 of record of learned Rent Controller. 34. Since non-applicants/petitioners were themselves contemplating to rent out the demised premises in favour of third party at the rate of Rs. Though aforesaid document has been disputed by Mr. Sood, learned senior counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners but execution of same stands proved by one Anil Kumar, as RPW-1/J at page No. 418 of record of learned Rent Controller. 34. Since non-applicants/petitioners were themselves contemplating to rent out the demised premises in favour of third party at the rate of Rs. 1.50 Lakh per month, they cannot be permitted at this stage to claim that market rent of demised premises at this time is not more than Rs. 15,000/- per month, rather, use and occupation charges being claimed by the applicant/respondent at the rate of Rs.2.00 Lakh per month appear to be just and reasonable. 35. The Shops qua which this Court vide order dated 11.3.2015 and 17.9.2014 passed in CR No. 16 of 2015 and CR No. 68 of 2014 has fixed market rate of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 9015/- per month cannot be equated with the demised premises i.e. shop of the applicant/respondent which is in the heart of the city, having a great commercial potential, just opposite to Gaiety Theatre and the Municipal Corporation building. Shops Nos. 37 and 76 situate on Mall Road, Shimla, qua which use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 2.00 Lakh per month are being received by respective landlords are the ones which can be compared to the demised premises i.e. Shop No. 33. 36. Though, the non-applicants/petitioners have claimed the area of demised premises to be 276.10 square feet but eviction order passed by learned Rent Controller clearly reveals that area of demised premises is 290 square feet (see para 72 of the order dated 28.2.2017 of learned Rent Controller). 37. This court, vide judgment dated passed in Civil Revision No. 165 of 2018 titled Raman Jain. v. Raj Kumar Mehta, upheld the judgment of appellate authority fixing use and occupation charges of Rs. 1,60,000/- for one month qua the shop, which is on extreme side of Mall Road, towards this Court i.e. M/s Raman Jewelers, whereas, as has been taken note, demised premises is in the middle of Mall Road, just opposite to Municipal Corporation building and the Police Reporting room, having great commercial potential. 38. Market Rent and use and occupation charges are to be assessed by a Court by doing fair assessment by taking into consideration various aspects i.e. location, potential and area etc. of building. 38. Market Rent and use and occupation charges are to be assessed by a Court by doing fair assessment by taking into consideration various aspects i.e. location, potential and area etc. of building. Location, potential, area etc. which are prime factors for fixation of use and occupation charges are not in dispute. 39. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the demised premises are situate at a prima location having great business potential. There is no averment that the condition of the building is so bad that it cannot be put to any use, rather, as has been taken note herein above, during the pendency of the rent proceedings before learned Rent Controller, nonapplicants/ petitioners themselves were trying to rent out the demised premises to third party at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakh per month and as such by no stretch of imagination, it can be claimed that use and occupation charges, if fixed at Rs.2.00 Lakh per month shall be on higher side. It stands duly proved on record that the shops in the vicinity of the demised premises are at present fetching more than Rs. 2.00 Lakh per month with the further condition of increase after every three years. 40. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds merit in the present application and accordingly the same is allowed and non-applicant/petitioner, who is legal representative of deceased petitioner No.1, the original tenant, is directed to pay the use and occupation charges qua the demised premises at the rate of Rs.2.00 Lakh per month from the date of passing of the eviction order dated 28.2.2017 passed by learned Rent Controller. Arrears of use and occupation charges with effect from 28.2.2017 till the date of passing of this order, shall be deposited by the non-applicant/petitioner within a period of two months from today, whereas, the current use and occupation charges shall be paid by the non-applicant/petitioner to the applicant/respondent by 10th of every month from next month i.e. September, 2022. It is clarified that in case of omission on the part of non-applicant/ petitioner to comply with this order, interim order dated 29.11.2018 whereby interim protection has been granted to the non-applicants/ petitioners, shall stand vacated and applicant/respondent shall be at liberty to get the order of learned Rent Controller executed in accordance with law. It is clarified that in case of omission on the part of non-applicant/ petitioner to comply with this order, interim order dated 29.11.2018 whereby interim protection has been granted to the non-applicants/ petitioners, shall stand vacated and applicant/respondent shall be at liberty to get the order of learned Rent Controller executed in accordance with law. However, in case, non-applicant/petitioner complies with the instant order, order dated 29.11.2018, shall be made absolute. Application stands disposed of in the afore terms.