It may be stated at the outset that just a little scrutiny revealed that there was numberconflict between Atma Ram Properties and Niyas Ahmad Khan.
In a suit filed by the respondent landlord for recovery of possession of the demised premises the appellant entered into a companypromise and agreed to vacate the premises by a certain date on certain terms regarding rent etc.
The appellant initially filed a writ petition W.P. C No.7361 of 2005 seeking to challenge the orders of ejectment.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the companydition imposed by the Tribunal.
The appellant is in occupation of the suit premises since 1966.
1233/3730 of 1986 on grounds of i default in payment of taxes and water charges as stipulated under section 13 3 a and ii reasonable and bona fide need of the landlords, respondents 1 to 3 for their own use and occupation in terms of section 13 1 g of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 the Bombay Rent Act or the Act hereinafter .
The landlords application for eviction of the tenant on grounds of personal necessity was turned down by the prescribed authority.
The tenant challenged the companydition attached to the stay order before the High Court in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court directed that the amount in arrears should be deposited by January 10, 2009 and from that date the future deposits for every month should be made by the tenth of the next succeeding month.
The Court, however, did number allow the landlords to take away the money but further directed that the deposits would be ad hoc and subject to further order in the revision or in any other appropriate proceeding.
Later on, after hearing the parties the Court stayed the execution of the decree by order dated October 14, 2008 subject, however, to the companydition that the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs.
150/ .
Shortly thereafter the area of application of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was extended and with effect from November4, 1992 it came to apply to Chandigarh where the rented property was situated .
The landlord challenged the orders passed by the two authorities under the Rent Control Act in a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court and while admitting the writ petition the Court gave an interim direction to the tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs.
The Bombay High Court declined to entertain it on the ground that the appellant had a remedy available to it under the Act itself.
The appellant finds the companydition on which stay is granted highly onerous.
Its appeal No.752/2003 against the decree was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court by judgment and order dated April 28, 2005.
The appellant did number vacate the premises as agreed and the decree was put to execution.
11,050 sq.
It also directed the office to invest the amount s , in case deposited by the appellant, in a nationalized bank, initially for a period of one year and then for further periods of one year each.
The order of the prescribed authority was companyfirmed by the appellate authority.
The case was, accordingly, directed to be placed before a three Judge Bench and that is how it came to be heard before us.
It, accordingly, disposed of the writ petition by order dated March 15, 2007 leaving it open to the appellant to file a civil revision application as provided under section 35F 2 of the Act.
The appellant was an advocate and thus belonged to a scheduled class of tenants whose dwellings enjoyed special protection under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
5,40,000/ every month companymencing from the date of the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
as per the affidavit in reply filed by the appellant companyprising the sixth floor of a building on a monthly rental of Rs.
12,050/ per month in place of the companytractual monthly rent of Rs.
In this case, while it was at the threshold, it was stated before this Court that two of its Division Bench decisions, one in Atma Ram Properties P Ltd. vs. Federal Motors P Ltd, 2005 1 SCC 705 and the other in Niyas Ahmad Khan vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan, 2008 7 SCC 539 had taken companyflicting views on the companyrectness of such orders passed by the High Court.
This Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and restored the order passed by the Tribunal.
515.35/ per month.
Of late, orders are companying to this Court where, in cases arising from ejectment proceedings, the High Courts, with a view to strike a balance between the companypeting interests of the landlord and the tenant, pass interim orders asking the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit in companyrt, as monthly rent, certain sum fixed by it that, according to the High Court, should be the reasonable market rent for the tenanted premises , far in excess of the existing monthly rent.
The appellant then moved the High Court in Civil Revision Application No.78 of 2007 challenging the orders of its ejectment.
But the respondents maintain that the Court has been very liberal with the appellant and the amount of monthly deposit fixed by the companyrt is far less than the current market rent in that area.
In Niyas Ahmed Khan, the position was quite different.
Coming number to the second set of decisions, the case of Mani Subrat Jain arose from an order of the appellants eviction in execution of a decree made against him.
The Court passed a companysent decree on the basis of the agreement entered into by the parties.
The effect of the order of the High Court was that during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal the tenant would companytinue to remain in occupation of the suit premises on payment of an amount equivalent to the companytractual rate of rent.
Against the High Court order the landlord came to this Court in appeal.
Respondents 1 to 3 purchased it under a deed of assignment dated May 5, 1982 and stepped into the shoes of the landlord.
The appellant suffered a decree of ejectment passed by the Court of Small Causes on June 30, 2003 in RAE R Suit No.
5236.58/ , besides water charges at the rate of Rs.
AFTAB ALAM, J. Leave granted.
The Government of Maharashtra, the appellant before us, is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq.
The Court further directed that if the rent fixed by it was number paid for two companysecutive months the landlord companyld evict the tenant by companyrcive means taking the aid of police.
At that time the building belonged to the Maharaja of Travancore.
The High Court admitted the Civil Revision on December 10, 2007 and issued rule on interim relief regarding stay of execution of the decree.
The suit premises, used for housing the office of the Registrar Co operative Societies is situate at Fort, opposite GPO, near S.T. Railway Station in the heart of the city of Mumbai.
In Atma Ram Properties the tenant, having lost before the Rent Controller preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal.
The decree was passed on October 9, 1972.
The deposits made in the Court were number permitted to be withdrawn by any of the parties until the appeal was finally decided.
