Bharat Deep Sethi vs Sonia Takkar

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.16809-16810 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.20226-20227/2017)

BHARAT DEEP SETHI .. APPELLANT(S)

Versus

SONIA TAKKAR .. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the interim

impugned orders dated 21st July, 2017 in C.M.No.25602/2017 and

in RC.Review No.102/2017 dated 25th July, 2017, in and by

which the High Court directed the appellant-tenant to pay an

amount of Rs.1,25,000/- per month with effect from 7 th June,

2017 till the end of the month July, 2017 and also continue to

pay the said amount to the respondent-landlord with effect

from the month of August, 2017.

3. Brief facts are that virtue of an unregistered lease

deed executed on 13th March, 2000, the appellant-tenant is on

rent in the suit property being Shop No.1, situated on the

ground floor, 2/9 Roop Nagar, Delhi. The respondent-landlord Signature Not Verified

claims Digitally signed by USHA RANI BHARDWAJ Date: 2017.10.14 to have purchased the property by virtue of a 12:10:53 IST Reason:

registered sale deed dated 07.02.2011 from the trust. The

respondent-landlord has filed the suit for eviction before the 2

learned Rent Controller for requirement of her son. The

appellants had filed an application seeking leave to defend on

the ground that there exists no landlord-tenant relationship.

By the order dated 28.06.2016 the Rent Controller dismissed

the application and declined leave to defend. Being

aggrieved, the appellant-tenant approached the High Court. By

the impugned order, the High Court has directed the

appellant-tenant to pay a sum of Rs.1.25 Lacs per month.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length. It is pointed out by both parties that the High Court

has only passed an interim order and has not heard the parties

on merits and whether the appellant-tenant has got any triable

issue. The apellant-tenant is stated to be in occupation of

190 sq.ft on the ground floor of the suit property bearing No.

2/9 Roop Nagar, Delhi. According to the respondent-landlord,

the tenanted premises is prime commercial property which would

definitely fetch not less than Rs.2 lakhs per month. This is

refuted by the counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant and

submitted that the amount fixed at Rs.1.25 lacs is very much

on the higher side and an opportunity ought to have been given

to the appellant-tenant to contest the matter on merits.

5. Without going into the merits of the rival

contentions, we direct the appellant-tenant to pay an amount

of Rs,40,000/- per month from the month of June, 2017,

towards use and occupation and the same shall be directly paid

to the respondent-landlord. The arrears at the rate of 3

Rs.40,000/- per month from June, 2017 shall be paid to the

respondent-landlord within a period of four weeks deducting

the amount already paid by the appellant-tenant to the

respondent-landlord. The appellant-tenant shall continue to

pay the rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- to the

respondent-landlord.

6. We are of the view that an opportunity should be

afforded to the appellant-tenant to raise all the contentions/

issues. The impugned orders dated 21.07.2017 and 25.07.2017

are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High

Court for consideration afresh. We request the High Court to

take up the main revision and dispose it of at an early date

preferably within three months from the date of receipt of

this order. The above order is passed without prejudice to

the contentions of the both parties and all the contentions

are left open. Till the matter is finally disposed of by the

High Court, no coercive steps shall be taken by the

respondent-landlord.

7. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

....................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

....................J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 12, 2017.