Needed a caselaw (2005) 1 SCC 705
Jainodin shaikh
(Querist) 12 June 2009
This query is : Resolved
I am in urgent need of fallowing caselaw of Supreme Court
(2005) 1 SCC 705
ATMARAM PROPERTIES LTD vs. FEDERAL MOTORS LTD
unfortunatly I am not having the SCC so please help me if you have this caselaw; post (plz send it also at: jainodin@gmail.com) in .doc or .pdf format.
Thanks in advance!
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 12 June 2009
Mr. Shaikh,
I hope this will helpful for you.
Scale 10 (2004) 345, Supreme 1 (2005) 469, SCC 1 (2005) 705
2005(1) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI and G.P. Mathur, J.
M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided on 10-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Garg, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anu Mohla and P.D. Gupta, Advocates.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Sections 14(1)(b) and 38(3)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 5(1), (3)—Stay on execution of order of eviction—Powers of Rent Control Tribunal—While passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code, appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the tenant on terms to compensate thelandlord, decree holder—Tenancy terminates with the passing of the order of eviction—Date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger—Non residential commercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. situated in prime commercial locality in heart of city of Delhi—Tenancy had commenced in year 1944 at the rent of Rs. 371.90p. per month—Eviction proceedings initiated in year 1992 on ground of illegal sub-letting—Addl. Rent Control ordered responÂdent to be evicted by its order dated 19-3-2002—On appeal, Rent Tribunal direcÂted eviction of respondent to be stayed subject to condition that respondent shall deposit in Court Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to contractual rent—Respondent filed a petition under ÂArticle 227 of the Constitution challenging the condition as to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- per month—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the said condition imposed by the Tribunal —(No).
Held : 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 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 (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.
(Para 19)
In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs. 371.90 p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. The Re
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 12 June 2009
i think the query has been sufficiently replied.
nice job done Sir.
Jainodin shaikh
(Querist) 24 June 2009
I am very thankful to all the experts for helping me!
Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar
(Expert) 12 June 2009
