Dismissed¶31

Vinay Sood v. M/S Gainda Mull Hem Raj

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Oct 2024CR/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Use and occupation charges; application under Section 151 CPC; Rent Controller; area of demised premises 390 vs 485 square feet; Architect report Ext. AW2/A; comparable lease deeds Ext. AW1/A, Ext. AW1/B, Ext. AW3/F; rate of Rs.78/- per square feet; Rs.30,420/- per month w.e.f. 31.03.2017; 10% increase after every three years; eviction order dated 31.03.2017; landlord's revision dismissed; no interference with impugned order; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Civil Revision No.132 of 2024; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

What did the court decide?

Although the Architect's report (Ext. AW2/A) mentioned the area of the demised premises as 485 square feet, the petitioner-landlord himself spelt out the area as 390 square feet in his application (4.70 meters x 8.30 meters); hence the area taken as 390 square feet stands. ¶21

Vinay Sood Vs M/S Gainda Mull Hem Raj — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Grievance (i): whether the learned Rent Controller erred in taking the area of the demised premises as 390 square feet when, according to the petitioner, it was 485 square feet. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Use and occupation charges determined by the learned Rent Controller taking the area of the premises as 390 square feet do not call for any interference.

¶26

Key takeaways

The determination of quantum of use and occupation charges at Rs.78/- per square feet, based principally on comparable lease deed Ext. AW1/B executed in September, 2018, with entitlement to a 10% increase in the monthly charges after every three years from 31.03.2017 till handing over of possession, is upheld; the reasoning given by the learned Rent Controller in the impugned order does not suffer from any error.ratio¶30
No interference is called for in the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller; the instant petition lacks merit and is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), Civil Revision No.132 of 2024, decided 4th October, 2024 — Landlord's civil revision against order dated 12.07.2024 of the learned Rent Controller (passed on his application under Section 151 CPC) fixing use and occupation charges at Rs.30,420/- per month w.e.f. 31.03.2017, with 10% enhancement after every three years until possession is handed over, DISMISSED. Held: (i) taking the area of the demised premises as 390 square feet was unexceptionable — though the Architect's report (Ext. AW2/A) recorded 485 square feet, the landlord himself pleaded the area as 390 square feet (4.70 m x 8.30 m) in his application; (ii) the rate of Rs.78/- per square feet, drawn principally from comparable lease deed Ext. AW1/B (commercial property at New Land Estate, Circular Road, Shimla, September 2018), validly supported the quantum as of the eviction order dated 31.03.2017, and the Rent Controller's reasoning suffered no error. Petition dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Revision No.132 of 2024 Decided on: 4^th October, 2024

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vinay Sood …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

.....Respondent

¶6

M/S Gainda Mull Hem Raj .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Ms. Meera Devi and Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates vice Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

Petitioner is the landlord. He feels aggrieved

¶12

against the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby in the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), he was held entitled for recovery of use and occupation charges to the tune of Rs.30,420/- per month w.e.f. 31.03.2017. The petitioner was also held entitled for increase in the aforesaid monthly use and occupation charges by 10% after every three years from 31.03.2017

¶13

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶14

¶15

until the possession of the demised premises is handed over to him by the respondent.

¶16

2. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner raised following two-fold grievances to the aforesaid order:-

¶17

(i). The area of demised premises has been taken by the learned Rent Controller as 390 square feet, whereas, it was 485 square feet.

¶18

(ii). The amount of Rs.30,420/- ascertained as

¶19

monthly use and occupation charges is not adequate.

¶20

3. Heard learned vice counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file.

¶21

3(i). Learned Rent Controller has taken note of the fact that though in the report of the Architect (Ext. AW2/A), area of demised premises was mentioned as 485 square feet, but the petitioner-landlord in his application, had himself spelt out the area of the demised premises as 390 square feet. The relevant pleadings from the application moved by the petitioner are as under:-

¶22

“4. That the premises in dispute is situated in the heart of city and the area in possession of the respondent is 4.70 meters x 8.30 meters as depicted in the plan annexed along with the present application. The said area comes to about 390 square feet and the same is being used by the respondent for commercial use for stacking and storing his goods……………….”

¶23

In the aforesaid circumstances, use and

¶24

occupation charges determined by the learned Rent

¶25

¶26

Controller taking the area of the premises as 390 square feet, does not call for any interference.

¶27

3(ii). Insofar as the determination of quantum of use and occupation charges is concerned, learned Rent Controller has given the following justification for determining Rs.78/- per square feet as use and occupation charges for the demised premises:- (a). Ext. AW1/A was the copy of the lease deed dated 19.08.2021, as per which a flat having built up area measuring 466.45 square feet situated in the building known as Hotel HimLand East, Circular Road, Shimla was leased out on monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-, i.e. Rs.43/- per square feet. (b). Ext. AW1/B was a copy of the lease deed dated 05.09.2018, a commercial property measuring about 800 square feet situated in New Land Estate, Circular Road, Shimla was leased out on monthly rent of Rs.62,000/-, i.e. Rs.78/- per square feet. Another copy of the lease deed, Ext. AW3/F, a commercial property situated in New Land Estate, Circular road, Shimla, measuring 1700 square feet, was leased out for the purpose of running a Bank on monthly rent of Rs.68,000/- on 26.09.2017, i.e. Rs.40/- per square feet.

¶28

¶29

Taking into consideration the aforesaid

¶30

documents, more particularly, the lease deed Ext. AW1/B, which was statedly executed in September, 2018, learned Rent Controller concluded that at the time of passing of the eviction order against the respondent on 31.03.2017, the petitioner was held entitled for use and occupation charges of the demised premises at the rate of Rs.78/- per square feet. Not only that, learned Rent Controller has also held the petitioner entitled for increase in the aforesaid monthly use and occupation charges by 10% after every three years from 31.03.2017 till the handing over of the possession. The reasoning given by the learned Rent Controller in the impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any error.

¶31

4. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller. The instant petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶32

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶33

October 04, 2024 Mukesh

Vinay Sood v. M/S Gainda Mull Hem Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Sood v. M/S Gainda Mull Hem Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

Anita Parihar and Others Vs Priyatu Mandal and Others

Ajay Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another

The Principal Secretary (revenue) and others Vs Hari Dutt and others

Hardyal Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. Vs State of Hp