Vide order dated 19.3.2002, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi held the ground for eviction made out and ordered the respondent to be evicted.
The premises are owned by the appellant and held on tenancy by the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.371.90p.
By order dated 12.2.2002, which is impugned herein, the learned single Judge of the High Court has allowed the petition and set aside the said companydition imposed by the Tribunal.
If the plea raised by the learned senior companynsel for the respondent was to be accepted, the tenant, in spite of having lost at the end, does number loose anything and rather stands to gain as he has enjoyed the use and occupation of the premises, earned as well a lot from the premises if they are number residential in nature and all that he is held liable to pay is damages for use and occupation at the same rate at which he would have paid even otherwise by way of rent and a little amount of companyts which is generally insignificant.
Feeling aggrieved, the landlord appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do number miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can thereby afford to perpetuate the life of litigation and companytinue in occupation of the premises.
Ordinarily this Court does number interfere with discretionary orders, more so when they are of interim nature, passed by the High Court or subordinate Courts Tribunals.
The provision empowers the Tribunal to pass an order of stay by reference to Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter the Code, for short .
This position was number disputed by the learned senior companynsel appearing for either of the parties.
Sometime in the year 1992, the appellant initiated proceedings for the eviction of the respondent on the ground available under Clause b of sub Section 1 of Section 14 of the Act alleging that the respondent had illegally sublet the premises to M s. Jay Vee Trading Co. Pvt.
The effect of the order of the High Court is that during the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal the respondent shall companytinue to remain in occupation of the premises subject to payment of an amount equivalent to the companytractual rate of rent.
The suit premises are number residential companymercial premises admeasuring approximately 1000 sq.
per month.
Raising a plea that the respondent companyld number have been directed during the pendency of the proceedings at any stage to pay or tender to the landlord or deposit in the Court any amount in excess of the companytractual rate of rent, the respondent filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution putting in issue the companydition as to deposit Rs.15,000/ per month imposed by the Tribunal.
Ltd. and the sub tenant was running its showroom in the premises.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.6415 of 2002 C. Lahoti, CJI Leave granted.
and situated in Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
The respondent preferred an appeal under Section 38 of the Act.
The deposits were permitted to be made either in cash or by way of fixed deposits in the name of the appellant and directed to be retained with the Court and number permitted to be withdrawn by either party until the appeal was finally decided.
By order dated 12.4.2001, the Rent Control Tribunal directed the eviction of the respondent to remain stayed but subject to the companydition that the respondent shall deposit in the Court Rs.15,000/ per month, in addition to the companytractual rent which may be paid directly to the appellant.
