Rent Control & Eviction - Mesne profits
and use and occupation charges - 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
CMP Nos. 8489/2017 and
8471/2018 in C.R. No. 196/2017 and CMP Nos. 8491/2017 and 9115/2018 in C.R. No. 197/2017
Date of decision :
28.12.2018
CMP Nos. 8489/2017 &
8471/2018 in C.R. No. 196/2017
Amarjit Singh Bedi ...Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Kuthiala and ors. ...Respondents
CMP Nos. 8491/2017 &
9115/2018 in C.R. No. 197/2017
Amarjit Singh Bedi ...Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Kuthiala and ors. ...Respondents
For the Petitioner(s):
Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
This order shall dispose of
applications filed by the tenant for setting aside portion of the operation of
the judgment dated 29.5.2017, whereby it upheld the order of eviction passed by
the learned Rent Controller on 4.9.2014 being CMP Nos. 8489/2017 and 8491/2017
and also dispose of the applications filed by the landlords being CMP Nos. 8471/2018 and 9115/2018 for modifying/vacating the interim order
passed by this Court and for fixation of use and occupation charges against the
tenant.
The parties shall be referred to as the “landlords” and the “tenant”.
2. The original land lady, Smt. Brij Bala Kuthiala, who died during
the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, filed
eviction petition against the tenant from premises situated in building No.3/5,
shop No. 3, alley No.3, Middle Bazaar,Shimla on the grounds that( i) the
tenant was in arrears of rent of the demised premises w.e.f. 1.3.2001; (ii) the
demised premises had been sub let by the tenant in favour of Vidur Singh Thakur
without written consent of the landlady in the year 2002; and (iii) premises
were bonafidely required by the landlady for reconstruction and rebuilding,
which cannot be carried out without the demised premises being vacated.
3. This petition was partly allowed by the learned Rent Controller
vide order dated 4.9.2014 on the ground of arrears of rent of the demised
premises to the tune of Rs.21,399.32/and that the demised premises were bonafidely
required by the landlady for reconstruction and rebuilding, which could not be
carried out without being vacated, whereas eviction on the ground of subletting
was dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the order of eviction,the tenant filed an appeal
before the learned Appellate Authority, whereas aggrieved by the order of
learned Rent Controller whereby the eviction of the tenant was denied on the
ground of subletting, the landlord also constrained to file separate appeal
before the learned Appellate Court. Both these appeals were taken up together
for consideration and vide common judgment dated 29.5.2017, the appeal filed by
the landlord was allowed whereby the tenant was also allowed to be evicted on
the ground of subletting, whereas the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed
constraining the tenant to file instant revision petitions.
5. At the outset, it needs to be observed that there can be no
dispute that once a decree for eviction has been passed in that event the
execution of decree for eviction can be stayed only if the tenant is put to
such reasonable terms as would in the opinion of the Court, reasonably
compensate the landlord for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by
the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being dismissed. There can
be further no quarrel that with effect from the date of decree of eviction, the
tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation charges
of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to
let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant.
6. It may also be observed 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.
7. This question has been considered in detail by this Court in Champeshwar Lall
Sood and another vs. Gurpartap Singh and others, 2017 (2) RCR
(Rent), 293, wherein
the further question as to how the mesne profits and use and occupation charges
are to be assessed, was also considered in the aforesaid case and it was
observed as under:
“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.”
8. In
this factual background, it is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to first
decide the applications filed by the landlords being CMP Nos. 8471/2018 and 9115/2018
for modifying/vacating the interim order passed by this Court and for fixation
of use and occupation charges against the tenant. It is averred that the
tenanted premises are a shop measuring about 130 sq. ft. in the heart of Shimla
Town and situated barely 30 feet from the Scandal Point, The Mall, Shimla and
the similar premises in the locality are being let out for over Rs.50,000/per month.
The tenanted premises are located at a prime location and can, therefore, easily
be let out at a monthly rental of Rs.50,000/.
9. The tenant has contested the applications by filing replies,
wherein it is denied that the tenanted premises are 30 feet away from the Scandal
Point, but it is admitted that the tenant premises are situated in Alley No.3,
which is commonly known as Middle Bazaar, Shimla. However, it is denied that
the monthly rental of similar area is Rs.50,000/. It is averred that Shop No.46/14, located in the same vicinity,
i.e. Alley No.3 having an area of 200 sq. feet has recently been rented out @
Rs.8000/per month as per agreement annexed with the report as Annexure PA. It
is also averred that in the same Alley, shop No.13 owned by Punjab Wakf Board
having an area of 177.30 sq. feet has been leased out to one Ravi Gupta,
resident of Shanti Sadan, Keleston at the monthly rental of Rs.600/per month as
is evident from the lease deed dated 14.3.2002, annexed with the reply as
Annexure PB.
10. The landlord has filed rejoinder(s), wherein it is averred that
the rent agreement in respect of shop No.46/14 is a manipulated and concocted
as it has been executed by the son of Vidhur Singh Thakur, who was earlier
sublettee of the tenant. It is further averred that the rent agreement pertains
to the year 2013 and it is a common knowledge that the premises, which are
subject matter of this agreement, are situated in a narrow alley in the heart
of Middle Bazaar and were previously occupied by Kashmiri labourers. Vidhur Singh
Thakur had paid a huge amount of ‘Pagri’ both to the Kashmiri labourers as well
as to the landlord at the time of taking these premises on rent, whereas the
premises, which form the subject matter of the rent agreement, cannot be compared
with the present tenanted premises in any manner whatsoever. As regards other
agreement annexed with the reply, it is averred that the same pertains to the
year 2002 and that too owned by the Punjab Wakf Board, which have grossly been
mismanaged and litigation regarding such premises is repeatedly coming up
before the Court. It is averred that the rent of the premises similar to the
premises in question has been determined by this Court at the rate of Rs.300/per
sq. feet. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Civil Revision
No.125/2016, wherein rent of a shop at Ritz Cinema Shimla, which is located at
a distance of about 300 metres from Scandal Point has been fixed @ Rs. 400/per sq. feet.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
gone through the material placed on record.
12. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the provisions of
the H.P. Urban Rent Control act, 1987 have been struck down by a Division Bench
of this Court in Chaman Lal Bali vs. State of H.P., 2016(3) Shim.L.C. 1593, wherein the Division Bench
was dealing with the question where the landlord had claimed that even after an
ejectment order having been passed, there was no provision for claiming mesne
profits or use and occupation charges and the tenant or sublette or any other
unauthorized occupants could conveniently squat over the premises for years and
decades together by paying the contractual rent.
13. Negating the said contention, this Court after placing reliance
upon on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that from the date
of passing of eviction order, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation
for use and occupation charges 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.
14. Answering the said question, It was held as under:
“23. In Marshall Sons and
Co.(I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and another (1999)
2 SCC 325, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the
invariable delay in Court proceedings held that reasonable mesne profit which
may be equivalent to the market rent should be awarded to prevent parties in
wrongful possession from taking undue advantage of lengthy delays in the main proceedings
and thereafter in execution proceedings. It is apt to reproduce paras 4 and 6
of the judgment which read thus:
“4. From the narration of the facts, though it
appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of the appellant is not
being executed for some reason or the other, we do not think it proper at this
stage to direct the respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since
the suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that proceedings
are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and on occasion become
highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a
legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay unscrupulous parties to the
proceedings take undue advantage and person who is in wrongful possession draws
delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural
complications. It is also known fact that after obtaining a decree for
possession of immovable property, its execution takes long time. In such a situation
for protecting the interest of judgment creditor, it is necessary to pass
appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to the
market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. In
appropriate cases, Court may appoint Receiver and direct the person who is
holding over the property to act as an agent of the Receiver with a direction
to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the Receiver or pass such other order
which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to the
plaintiff in whose favour decree is passed and to protect the property
including further alienation.
6. Having considered the
relevant submissions of the parties including the submissions with regard to market
rent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the
parties in the pending suit, we think it appropriate to dispose of this matter with
the following directions:
(1) That the suit in question be disposed of as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within one year from today;
(2) The respondents are
directed to pay the mesne profits/compensation at the rate of Rs.10/per sq. ft. from 1984 till today and at the rate of Rs.20/from today till the
disposal of the suit. While making this payment, the payments already made
shall be adjusted. So far as the arrears are concerned, it be paid in 12 equal
monthly instalments.
24. The principle of
determining mesne profits after the eviction order has been passed and the
right of landlord to receive higher rent than the contractual rent was
established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties
(P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 wherein it was held as
under:
“19. 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 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 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. 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.”
25.
Notably, even though there is no express provision in the Act for the grant of
mesne profit, but then, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marshall Sons and
Co.(I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and another (1999) 2 SCC 325 that once a decree for
possession has been passed and execution is delayed depriving the
judgmentcreditor 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.
26. Similar reiteration of
law is found in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anderson Wright and
Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy and others AIR 2005 SC 2457, wherein it was held as
under:
“5. As held by this Court in
Atma Ram Properties
(P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. , once a decree for eviction has been passed, in the event of
execution of decree for eviction being stayed, the appellants can be put on
such reasonable terms, as would in the opinion of the appellate court
reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in
execution of the decree by the grant of stay in the event of the appeal being
dismissed. It has also been held that with effect from the date of decree of
eviction, 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 on being vacated by the tenant. While determining
the quantum of the amount so receivable by the landlord, the landlord is not
bound by the contractual rate of rent which was prevalent prior to the date of
decree.”
27. In State of Maharashtra and another vs. M/s Super Max International
Pvt. Ltd. and others AIR 2010 SC 722, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while
admitting the appeal after ejectment order, it is perfectly open to the
appellate or the revisional court to direct the tenant to pay rent higher than
the contractual rent, but the Court would not fix any excessive, fanciful or
punitive amount. Since the mesne profits are not assessed by the appellate authority
on the basis of the evidence led as per the Act, by production of evidence, on
fact on issue or relevant facts, but is merely an assessment on the basis of
primafacie market rate is existing at the time of admission of the appeal after
eviction order, a benefit has been bestowed on the landlord that he would be
reasonably compensated for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by
grant of stay order. The mesne profit or compensation payable to the landlord is
generally determined on the basis of the cogent material placed on record by
the parties in the shape of the registered lease deeds of the locality indicating
the tentative amount of the rent which as the landlord would be entitled to in
a case he had rented out the premises at the present market rate existing on the
date of ejectment. However, there is no straight jacket formula.
28. It would be noticed that
the entire subject matter of mesne profits in the event of a decree of eviction
and appeal there against being filed, is a judgemade law chiseled out by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements (some of which have been
cited above), the entire premise of the aforesaid judgments is that once a
decree of eviction is passed, the tenant becomes unlawful occupant (subject to
his right in appeal/revision), therefore, any contract between the parties also
comes to an end. It is for this reason that the Courts have carved out this new
principle for ensuring that the tenant in unlawful possession does not further
prejudice the landlord, who is otherwise entitled to get possession of his
property and for this purpose, have laid down that the tenant must pay a
reasonable amount subject to the outcome of the appeal/revision.
29. Even otherwise, the awarding of mesne profits does put a check
on the diabolical plans of the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted to
further delay the matter and squat on the premises by paying a nominal or
meager rent.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 judgmentcreditor 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.
18. 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.
19. What is ‘reasonable’ is difficult to define and this expression being a relative term
is required to be considered visà 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).
20. 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".
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).”
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the premises
in question admittedly are nonresidential and in fact comprise of shop
measuring 130 sq. feet.
24. This Court in Chameshwar Lall Sood’s case (supra) was dealing with eviction of premises, which are
situated at a distance of about less than 200 metres from the premises in question
and this Court on the basis of evidence produced by the landlord fixed the use
and occupation charges @ Rs.250/per sq. feet.
25. In the present case, even though the landlord has not produced
any such evidence but
then he is well within his right to place reliance on the decisions rendered by
this Court which can definitely be taken into consideration while fixing the
mesne profits and use and occupation charges.
26. The tenant has produced on record two rent agreements/deeds.
27. As regards rent agreement, Annexure PA, produced by the tenant,
monthly rental has been fixed @ Rs.8000/qua shop No.46/14 having an area of 200
sq. feet, which is located in Alley No.3, Middle Bazaar Shimla, however, then
admittedly this shop has been rented out to one Dinesh Singh Thakur, who is
none other than the son of respondent No.3, who happens to be the alleged sublettee
in the present case, therefore, much credence cannot be lent to this document.
28. Adverting to the lease agreement annexed with the reply as
Annexure PB, it would not be noticed that lease therein is alleged to have been
executed on 14.3.2002 and relates to a shop No.13/3 measuring 19.7 sq. yards at
Middle Bazaar Shimla. The monthly rental fixed therein is Rs.600/. Much credence cannot be placed upon this document also as 16 years
have passed from the date of execution of the alleged agreement.
29. No doubt, even though the landlord has not placed any
contemporaneous record, which may remotely indicate or show the prevalent rent
in the vicinity, however, nonetheless facts remains that these premises are
situated in the Middle Bazaar just about 30 feet away from the Scandal Point,
which in itself is a commercial and vending street/area having astoundingly
high commercial value and, to my mind, can conveniently be rented out at
monthly rental of Rs. 200 sq. feet.
30. At this stage, I may also refer to a judgment passed by a
coordinate bench of this Court in C.R. No. 125/2016, titled as Narinder
Kumar vs. Rohit Madan and ors. on 3.8.2018, wherein the Court was dealing with the premises situated
at the ground floor of building, commonly termed as Ritz Cine Complex and after
placing reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Champeshwar Lall Sood’s case, fair rent was fixed @ Rs.
250 per sq. feet. Since
the demised premises comprise of 130 sq. feet, therefore, tenant is liable to pay
use and occupation charges @ Rs.26,000/per month.
31. Accordingly, the interim order dated 6.10.2017 is modified to
the extent that the operation and execution of the impugned order passed by the
learned Rent Controller and judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority
shall remain stayed subject to the following terms:
(a) The tenant shall deposit use and occupation charges @ Rs.
26,000/per month with effect from the date of eviction order i.e. 4.9.2014 and the
same shall be deposited by him in the trial court.
(b) All
arrears worked out on the aforesaid basis shall be deposited within 30 days,
failing which the eviction order shall forthwith become executable.
(c) All
interim orders passed from time to time by this Court shall be deemed to have
merged with this order.
32. It goes without saying that
any observation touching the merits of the case is purely for the purpose of deciding
the question(s) involved in these applications and shall not be construed as an
expression of final opinion in the main matters or in any other proceedings.
Applications stand disposed of.
C.R. No. 196/2017 and C.R. 197/2017
List on 13.3.2019.