2018 (3) TMI 1999 - HC - Indian Laws

Decree for Eviction - validity of order passed by the first Appellate Court on the application for stay that was moved by the respondents during pendency of the appeal filed by them challenging the decree for eviction - amount of occupation charges - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that in the year 2012 the respondents had offerred an amount of Rs.49/ per sq. ft. as reasonable rent for the purposes of extension of lease coupled with the fact that as per the ready reckoner the occupation charges as determined by the petitioners come to Rs.1,93,877/ , by taking a prima facie view of the matter I feel the Appellate Court ought to have granted higher amount of occupation charges to be paid by the respondents. Thus taking an overall view of the matter and in the light of the offer made at Exhibit 50 as well as reply filed on behalf of the petitioners to the stay application, the reasonable amount of occupation charges would come to Rs.1,30,000/ per month to be paid during pendency of the appeal. The order dated 15/03/2017 is partly modified. It is directed that from March 2018 and during pendency of the appeal the respondents shall pay occupation charges of Rs.1,30,000/ per month. This amount is determined without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the first Appellate Court on the application for stay during the pendency of an appeal.
2. Determination of occupation charges for the property in question.
3. Dispute over the quantum of occupation charges and the reasoning behind the Appellate Court's decision.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, original plaintiffs, challenged the order passed by the first Appellate Court regarding the application for stay moved by the respondents during the appeal challenging the eviction decree. The Appellate Court had stayed the execution of the decree subject to the respondents depositing occupation charges of Rs.1,00,000 per month. The petitioners contested this decision, arguing that the Appellate Court did not provide reasons for determining the occupation charges at that amount.

2. The property in question, measuring 3582 sq. ft., was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.69,168. The petitioners filed a suit for ejectment, which was decreed. The respondents appealed this decree and sought a stay on its execution. The Appellate Court granted a stay with the condition of depositing occupation charges. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to higher occupation charges based on the property's value and previous rent offers made by the respondents.

3. The petitioners' counsel argued that the occupation charges should be increased based on calculations related to the property's value and previous rent offers by the respondents. The respondents' counsel supported the Appellate Court's decision, stating that the substantive appeal was pending, and the trial court's findings were under challenge. After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court modified the order, directing the respondents to pay occupation charges of Rs.1,30,000 per month during the appeal, taking into account the property's value and previous rent offers made by the respondents in 2012.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the challenge to the Appellate Court's order on occupation charges and the reasoning behind the modification of the decision.