S.
NO",ADDRESS,PAGE,SQUARE FEET,"SQUARE
METER",RENT,"PER
SQUARE
FEET","SUIT
PREMISES
RENT
1.,"A5/4 KRISHNA
NAGAR.
Front/main roadÂ
facing just
opposite  to
the       Â
suit premises
and        Â
10
walking steps  Â
away
from      Â
the tenanted property
Photograph
annexed  on
page 21","ONÂ Â Â Â
PAGE 280-
285
ANNEXURE
-R","8’X8’=64’
SQ.FT","5.94
SQ.MT","RS.
25,000/-","RS.390.63
SQ FT.","RS.Â
25,390/-
P.M.
2.,"A5/8 KRISHNA
NAGAR. Front/main
road facing and
approx. 50 mtrs. Away
from the tenanted
premises","ON PAGE
286-292
ANNEXURE
-S",922 SQ.FT,"85.7
SQ.MT","RS.
45,000/-","RS.48.81
SQ.FT","RS.3172.65/-
P.M.
3.,"A8/29 AND A8/30
KRISHNA NAGAR.
Road facing and
approx. 165 mtrs.
Away from the
tenanted premises (IN
Lane)","ON PAGE
293-297
ANNEXURE
â€"T",350 SQ.FT,"32.60
SQ.MT","RS.15,000/-
/
RS.20,000/-","RS.57.15/
SQ.FT","RS.3714.75/-
P.M.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the present case is squarely covered by the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra), where the respondent",,,,,,,
No.1 has to compensate the petitioner for the loss to be suffered by the petitioner on account of the order dated 9th March, 2021 of the RCT stating",,,,,,,
that the petitioner shall not take coercive steps in the execution petition. It is to be noted that the order for eviction was passed in favour of the,,,,,,,
petitioner on 26th September, 2019 and the objections filed by the respondent No.1 were also dismissed on 1st February, 2021, and the respondent",,,,,,,
No.1 has no right to continue in possession. The respondent No.1 continues to be in possession of the suit property only on account of the interim,,,,,,,
protection granted to him vide the order dated 9th March, 2021.",,,,,,,
11. Having found the petitioner to be entitled to use and occupation charges, the RCT has erroneously awarded use and occupation charges @",,,,,,,
Rs.270/- per month. The judgment in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) clearly states that the use and occupation charges do not necessarily,,,,,,,
have to be the same as the contractual rate of rent. The respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation for use and occupation of the suit property at,,,,,,,
the same rate at which the petitioner would have been able to let out the suit property and earn rent if the respondent No.1 would have vacated the,,,,,,,
suit property.,,,,,,,
12. What remains to be determined is the date from which the use and occupation charges are payable by the respondent No.1 and the rate at which,,,,,,,
the same are payable.,,,,,,,
13. Admittedly, the eviction petition was filed in April, 2015 by the petitioner against the respondents No.2 to 4 and was allowed on 26th September,",,,,,,,
2019. The petitioner was free to execute the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller from 26th September, 2019 till the grant of the direction to",,,,,,,
the effect that coercive action would not be taken by the petitioner on 9th March, 2021. However, the execution petition was filed by the petitioner",,,,,,,
only in July, 2020.",,,,,,,
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid and the judgment of this Court in V.C. Jain (supra), the petitioner can claim use and occupation charges, apart",,,,,,,
from the contractual rate of rent, from the respondent No.1 only from August, 2020.",,,,,,,
15. In the opinion of this Court, for fixing the compensation payable by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner, the best indicator would be the lease",,,,,,,
deeds of similar premises situated in the same locality. In order to ascertain the use and occupation charges to be paid by the respondent No.1, this",,,,,,,
Court finds it appropriate to rely upon the lease deeds at serial no.2 and 3 of the aforesaid table as placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner.,,,,,,,
Amongst the three lease deeds placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner, the said two lease deeds are in a similar range, having similar rates",,,,,,,
per sq. ft. and having been entered into approximately one year apart. The lease deed at serial no.1 is deemed not relevant as the rent payable,,,,,,,
pursuant thereto is significantly higher, and this Court also deems it appropriate to take into account the dilapidated condition of the suit property,",,,,,,,
evidenced by the photographs filed thereof. It may also be made note of that the lease deeds relied upon the counsel for the respondent No.1 do not,,,,,,,
serve the said purpose as the same relate to a godown and a basement, and therefore, cannot be taken into account while fixing the use and",,,,,,,
occupation charges.,,,,,,,
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the two lease deeds filed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court, this Court is of the",,,,,,,
view that the respondent No.1 would be liable to pay use and occupation charges @ Rs.3,500/- per month w.e.f. August, 2020.",,,,,,,
17. Accordingly, this Court affirms the direction of the RCT to the extent that it directs the respondent No.1 to pay to the petitioner, the contractual",,,,,,,
rent @ Rs.270/- per month but for the period prior to the filing of the execution petition i.e. from the date of filing of the eviction petition i.e. from,,,,,,,
April, 2015 till the date the execution petition was filed by the petitioner i.e. July, 2020. The arrears of the contractual rent @ Rs.270/- per month",,,,,,,
w.e.f. April, 2015 till the date the execution petition was filed by the petitioner i.e. July, 2020, shall be paid by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner on",,,,,,,
or before 15th January, 2022.",,,,,,,
18. The use and occupation charges @ Rs.3,500/- shall be deposited with the RCT on or before 10th day of every month, beginning from January,",,,,,,,
2022.,,,,,,,
19. The arrears of use and occupation charges @ Rs.3,500/- per month w.e.f. August, 2020 till December, 2021 shall be deposited with the RCT by",,,,,,,
the respondent No.1 on or before 15th January, 2022.",,,,,,,
20. The use and occupation charges @ Rs.3,500/- shall be invested in a fixed deposit and the release of such amount with interest accrued thereon",,,,,,,
shall be directed by the RCT at the time of the disposal of the appeal by the RCT.,,,,,,,
21. The counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that substantial arguments on behalf the respondents have already been heard by the learned RCT in,,,,,,,
the appeal.,,,,,,,
22. Therefore, in view of the above, RCT is requested to expeditiously decide the said appeal.",,,,,,,
