ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. V. FEDERAL MOTORS (P) LTD. (2005) 1 SCC 705
FACTS
The suit premises are non-residential commercial premises and situated in Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The premises are owned by the appellant and held on tenancy by the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month. The tenancy had commenced sometime in the year 1944 and it appears that ever since then the rent has remained static. The provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, are applicable to the premises.
Sometime in the year 1992, the appellant initiated proceedings for the eviction of the respondent on the ground available under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act alleging that the respondent had illegally sublet the premises to M/s. Jay Vee Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the sub-tenant was running its showroom in the premises.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Additional Rent Controller: ordered the respondent to be evicted.
Rent Control Tribunal: directed the eviction of the respondent to be stayed but subject to the condition that the respondent shall deposit in the court Rs. 15000/month, in addition to the contractual rent which may be paid directly to the appellant.
High Court: held that during the pendency of appeal before the tribunal the respondent shall continue to remain in occupation of the premises subject to payment of an amount equivalent to the contractual rent.
ISSUES
JUDGEMENT
The Court held,
(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 (I) 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.
Therefore, the order of the High Court was set aside and that of the Tribunal was restored with costs incurred in the High Court and in this Court.