9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 2079 - HC - Indian LawsQuantum of occupation charges of the suit premises - application for stay of decree filed by the respondent (tenant) has been allowed on the condition that the respondent shall pay an amount Rs.10, 000/- per month from the date of the judgment of the trial court till the decision of appeal towards occupation charges of the suit premises - it is contended that amount is unreasonably low considering the market rent that is being fetched by similar properties in the very same building. HELD THAT - While granting stay of the decree passed against the appellant the appellate Court is expected to impose conditions that are reasonable and those that are based on the prevalent market conditions. This is because when the trial Court passes decree of eviction the relationship of landlord and tenant stands severed and if the person who has been occupying the premises as a tenant desires to occupy the same during the pendency of the appeal challenging the eviction decree he is expected to abide by conditions that are imposed by the appellate Court while granting stay. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners show that relevant material for determining quantum of such occupation charges can certainly be ready reckoner lease deeds or rent agreements executed in the recent past concerning comparable properties so that the Court can arrive at a reasonable figure towards occupation charges while granting stay of decree of eviction faced by the tenant. In the judgments in the case of Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. .vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 (8) TMI 1282 - SUPREME COURT and ADAM ALI H. FIRDOSY INAYAT ALI S/O LATE HUSSAIN FIRDOSY AKBAR ALI S/O LATE HUSSAIN FIRDOSY VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER 2018 (3) TMI 1999 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT this Court has proceeded on the basis that when the market rate of the suit premises is determined on the basis of a ready reckoner or other such relevant material 6% of such market value gives the figure that the suit property would fetch annually towards rent. On this basis in the aforesaid cases this Court has proceeded to determine the figure of occupation charges to be paid by the tenant who seeks stay of the eviction decree. The aforesaid position of law is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent but he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyas Ahmad Khan .vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan 2008 (5) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT to contend that the appellate Court in the present case had fixed a reasonable figure towards occupation charges. It was contended that when the appellate Court imposes condition while determining the quantum of occupation charges it cannot adopt an arbitrary figure and that the condition cannot be unreasonable or oppressive. The said judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is clearly distinguishable because in that case the landlord had failed in both the Courts below and it was the writ petition of the landlord which was being considered by the High Court and in such a situation the question that the High Court considered was as to whether the tenant could be asked to pay a higher figure towards occupation charges or rent during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court. In the said case since the Courts below had not granted the eviction decree the relationship of landlord and tenant continued and therefore the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the said case pertained to a totally different factual scenario. Even if the said position of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is applied to the facts of the present case it becomes clear that while passing the impugned order the appellate Court failed to take into consideration the material placed on record on behalf of the petitioners. If the ready reckoner is taken into consideration and applied to the suit shop premises it has come on record that the market value of the suit shop block would come to about Rs.82.71 square meter X 1, 49, 400/- per square meter. Although the petitioners have contended that the area in occupation of the respondent is about 1332 square feet but taking into consideration the pleadings on record and the fact that the appeal is still pending before the appellate Court even if the area of only two shop blocks is taken into consideration it undisputedly comes to about 890 square feet which is about 82.71 square meters. Therefore the rate specified in the ready reckoner has been multiplied by the figure of 82.71 square meters to arrive at market value of the suit shop blocks. It is undisputed that if the said market value is taken into consideration and the rent of the two shop blocks is estimated at about 6% of the said figure the monthly rate of rent comes to about Rs.1, 71, 631/- per month - It appears that in the said lease deed the tenant is a Bank and the period of lease is upto the year 2031 with periodical increase in the rent amount every five years. Taking into consideration these factors it appears that a figure of Rs.1, 00, 000/- per month is a reasonable amount towards occupation charges for the suit shop blocks in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that there shall be stay of the decree of eviction granted by the trial Court subject to the condition that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000/- per month from the date of the judgment of the trial Court till the decision of the appeal towards occupation charges for the suit premises. The arrears of the said occupation charges at the aforesaid rate shall be deposited by the respondent within a period of three months from today.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellate court's order granting stay of eviction decree. 2. Reasonableness of the occupation charges fixed by the appellate court during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Consideration of market rent and relevant material in determining occupation charges. 4. Impact of the age and condition of the building on occupation charges. 5. Need for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appellate court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the appellate court's order granting stay of eviction decree: The petitioners challenged the order dated 27.08.2018 by the District Judge, Nagpur, which granted a stay on the eviction decree on the condition that the respondent pays Rs.10,000/- per month as occupation charges. The petitioners argued that this amount was unreasonably low considering the market rent of similar properties in the same building. 2. Reasonableness of the occupation charges fixed by the appellate court during the pendency of the appeal: The petitioners contended that Rs.10,000/- per month was significantly lower than the market rent, which, based on the ready reckoner and recent lease deeds, ranged between Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The appellate court's fixation of Rs.10,000/- was argued to be without basis and not reflective of the prevalent market conditions. 3. Consideration of market rent and relevant material in determining occupation charges: The court emphasized that the appellate court must impose conditions based on market conditions when granting a stay of an eviction decree. Relevant material such as ready reckoner, lease deeds, and recent rent agreements should be considered. The appellate court failed to consider the ready reckoner and other relevant material provided by the petitioners, making the order erroneous. 4. Impact of the age and condition of the building on occupation charges: The respondent argued that the building was over 50 years old and the nature of their business did not generate sufficient income to pay higher occupation charges. The court acknowledged the age of the building but still found that Rs.10,000/- per month was unreasonably low. After considering the ready reckoner and the age of the building, the court determined a reasonable occupation charge to be Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 5. Need for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appellate court: The court directed the appellate court to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, recognizing the importance of resolving the matter swiftly to determine the validity of the eviction decree on merits. Conclusion: The writ petition was partly allowed. The impugned order was modified to require the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month as occupation charges from the date of the trial court's judgment until the appeal's decision. The respondent was directed to deposit arrears within three months. The appellate court was expected to expedite the hearing and disposal of the appeal.
|
