Rajiv Kumar v. Meena Sharma

order."

ORDER: Both the appeals stand dismissed. The orders dated 22.07.2016 in RC/ARC No. 684/16 in E. No. 212/05 and in RC/ARC No. 683/16 in E. No. 211/05 on the files of Ld. SCJ, Shahdara, KKD Courts, are hereby, affirmed."

¶4Ld. counsel for the Tenants submits that the manner in which the benefit of Section 14(2) was not given to the Tenants, is contrary to law. He submits that future defaults could not have been considered while considering the benefit under Section 14(2) and in fact, the Tenant had not committed any default. He further submits that the manner in which the decree for eviction has also been passed based upon the wrong interpretation of law shows that the same is liable to be set aside. Ld. counsel, however, on a query from the Court fairly concedes two aspects i.e. first, that the rent for November, 2006 to January, 2007 was in fact paid only in February, 2007 and second, that pursuant to the eviction decree being passed, the execution was filed and the possession of the premises has also been given in July, 2018.

¶5On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Landlord submits that possession having been handed over and the Tenants having enjoyed a stay order from this Court, which has not been complied with, no indulgence deserves to be shown to them. In fact, a stay order was initially granted on 17th November, 2017 and was therafter vacated vide order dated 24th April, 2018 due to non-compliance by Tenants. The Tenants, while enjoying interim orders have failed to pay any of the amounts directed by the Court. Further, the default has not only been for the period of 2006 and 2007 but even after enjoying interim orders passed by this Court. In the meantime,

since the stay was vacated, the property has been handed over and the Tenants, who are in default cannot be put back in possession.

¶6A perusal of the initial order dated 3rd March, 2015 shows that the ld. Single Judge had ruled on the question as to whether future defaults can be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting or non-granting the benefit under Section 14(2). That order dated 3rd March, 2015 has attained finality and has not been challenged by the Tenants. Even in the present petition, initially vide order dated 3rd May, 2017, warrants of possession were directed to be not executed till the next date. On applications moved by the landlord, the matter came to be considered at the interim stage afresh vide order dated 17th November, 2017. The ld. Single Judge in the said order directed that payment of Rs.40,000/- shall be made in respect of each of the shops which are subject matter of the two petitions on or before the 10th of each successive month. The said order is extracted herein below: "CM No.19077/2017 in CM (M) No.501/2017 & CM No.19080/2017 in CM(M) No.502/2017 (both for exemption)

¶1Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶2The applications are disposed of. CM(M) 501/2017 & CM(M) 502/2017

¶3Adjournment is sought by the counsel for the petitioners.

¶4The counsel for the respondent opposes, contending that stay of the order of eviction impugned has been granted without even imposing any conditions on the petitioners in terms of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705.

¶5The orders of eviction impugned in these petitions became executable in July, 2016. The petitioners have already enjoyed possession for nearly one and a half years without paying any compensation.

¶6The counsel for the petitioners on enquiry states that he has no idea of the prevalent letting value.

¶7The counsel for the respondent states that as far back as in the year 2011, compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month was fixed for each of the shops subject matter of the two petitions. He further states that the petitioners themselves had offered rent to the respondent at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month for both the shops.

¶8The counsel for the petitioners also confirms.

¶9In this view of the matter, the continuation of the stay of the order of eviction impugned in these petitions is made subject to payment of compensation by the petitioners to the respondent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month for each of the shops subject matter of the two petitions.

¶10The petitioner/s in each of the petitions to, on or before 25th December, 2017, pay to the respondent compensation at the said rate with effect from the month of August, 2016 till the month of December, 2017 and to continue to pay compensation at the said rate with effect from the month of January, 2018, month by month, in advance for each month, by the 10th day of the month and till further orders in these petitions.

¶11If there is any default in payment, the interim order shall stand vacated and the respondent shall be entitled to execute the order of eviction subject to final outcome of the petitions.

¶12If there is any default in payment, the interim order shall stand vacated and the respondent shall be entitled to execute the order of eviction subject to final outcome of the petitions.

¶13Needless to state that the payments aforesaid are also subject to final outcome of the petitions and repatriable by the respondent in the event of the petitions succeeding.

¶14CM Nos.16964/2017, 19076/2017, 16967/2017 & 19079/2017 are disposed

of. 15. List on 24th April, 2018."

¶7It is the admitted position that the tenants did not comply with the above order. Thus, vide order dated 24th April, 2018, the stay which was granted was vacated. The landlord has since filed for execution and the possession of the premises has been handed over.

¶8Considering that the Tenant has been under repeated defaults in making payments to the landlord, no indulgence deserves to be shown by this Court. The benefit of Section 14(2) is meant for bona fide Tenants and cannot be extended to those Tenants who are neither paying the admitted rent as per the directions, but also the occupation charges as directed by the Court to enjoy a stay order.

¶9Under these circumstances, it is clear that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Further the Petitioner has enjoyed interim relief since 3rd May, 2017 till July, 2018, which is a period of approximately 13 months, further orders are required to be passed so as to ensure that parties who enjoy interim orders are not shown indulgence for non-compliance. Considering that the occupation charges which were directed was approximately Rs.40,000/- for each of the shops i.e. Rs.80,000/- per month, the Petitioner is liable to compensate the landlord for this period. The total amount that would be due as per the order dated 17th November, 2017 would be Rs.80,000/- per month from the date when the interim order was passed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, considering that there has been default by the Tenants, and the total amount due in terms of the interim order dated 17th November, 2018 would be over and above Rs.10 lakhs and the Tenant has now handed over the possession of the property to the

landlord, it is directed that a lumpsum amount of Rs.5 lakhs shall be paid to the landlord on or before 8 weeks from today. If the said amount is paid, no further amount would be liable to be paid for the period 3rd May, 2017 till July, 2018. Failure to pay this amount, would entail the Tenants to pay the entire sum of Rs.10,40,000/-. The landlord would be entitled to recover the same along with @ 6% per annum from 17th November, 2017.

¶10With these observations, both the petitions and all pending applications are disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 09, 2020 Rahul

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 9th January, 2020 + CM(M) 501/2017 RAJIV KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Mr. Akash Chatterjee & Mr. Priyansh Sharma, Advocates (M-9646996865) versus MEENA SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate (M- 9810001582) AND + CM(M) 502/2017 & CM APPLs. 47488/2017, 47518/2017 DHARAM PAL & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Mr. Akash Chatterjee & Mr. Priyansh Sharma, Advocates versus MEENA SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. The present petitions challenge the impugned orders dated 22nd July, 2016 passed by the ld. Rent Controller and the order dated 20th April, 2017 passed by the ld. Rent Control Tribunal by which the eviction petition filed by the Respondent/Landlord (hereinafter, "Landlord") has been allowed. The background is that an eviction petition was filed by the Landlord – Smt. Meena Sharma against the Petitioners/Tenants (hereinafter, "Tenants") under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Initially, vide order dated 5th September, 2006, the Tenants were held to be in breach and a decree was passed under Section 14 (1)(a). However, benefit was given under Section 14(2). Since there were defaults by the tenant, the matter reached this Court in CM(M) 796/2014 and CM(M) 797/2014. The question that came to be considered in the said petition was whether future defaults by the Tenant could be considered for the purpose of refusing benefit under Section 14(2). The petitions were decided by this Court vide the said order dated 3rd March, 2015 and the matter was remanded back to the ld. ARC in the following terms: "7. The short issue in the present petitions is that in the absence of an order under Section 15(1) DRC Act directing payment of future rent, whether the Court was not required to consider future defaults in view of provision under Section 26 of the DRC Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 5th June, 2006 condoning the delay without any application seeking condonation of delay was an illegal order and further illegality was committed by the impugned orders of the learned ARC dated 7th September, 2013 and Rent Controller dated 24th July,2014 when they did not consider the subsequent defaults made. Even if there was no direction by the Court to pay future rents the provision of Section 26 DRC Act was applicable and any delay in deposition of the money beyond 15th day of the proceeding month would have given rise to a cause of action in favour of the petitioners amounting to subsequent defaults. Reliance is placed on Shanti Prasad Jain (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Prakash Narain Mathur 158 (2009) DLT 483(SC); Sanjay Kumar Saxena Vs. Smt. Meeta Govel 114 (2004) DLT 710; Ram Prakash Tewari Vs. Suraj Bhan Yadav 90(2001) DLT 236 and Shri Manohar Lal (deceased) through LRs Vs. Prem Nath Gera (deceased) through LRs. CM(M) 638/2011, decided by this Court on 24th May, 2011. .... 12. Thus even if the learned ARC vide the order dated 5th September, 2006 failed to pass directions for payment of future-rent, the tenant was statutorily bound to pay the future rent in terms of Section 26 of the Act. However, both the learned ARC and the Rent Controller committed illegality in not considering Section 26 of the DRC Act and dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a), 14(2) and 15(7), 25 and 26 of the DRC Act read with Section 151 CPC on the ground that there was no order for payment of future rent under Section 15(1) DRC Act. Thus, there is an illegality committed by both the Courts below. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Rent Controller for consideration of the petitioner's applications under Sections 14(2), 15(7), 25 and 26 of the DRC Act and whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of th