Khanna Jeweller vs Kapil Tandon & Ors.

,,

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J",,

RC.REV. 599/2018 & CM APPLN. 52211/2018, 52213/2018, 13763/2019, 14710/2019, 22274/2019, 29718/2019, 13291/2020,",,

15856/2020, 15858/2020 & 18719-20/2020 & RC.REV. 129/2020",,

Petitioner in RC.REV. 599/2018 (i.e. Respondent No. 1 in the Eviction Petition) is the Tenant in the tenanted property and impugns order dated,,

09.07.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, dismissing the application for grant of leave to defend the Eviction Petition filed by Respondents 1 & 2",,

therein (i.e. Petitioners in the Eviction Petition).,,

Petitioner in RC.REV. 129/2020 (i.e. Respondent No. 2 in the Eviction Petition) is a co-owner of the subject property and impugns order dated,,

09.07.2018 passed by the Rent Controller to the limited extent that the Tenant has been directed to deliver possession of the tenanted premises,,

exclusively to Respondent No. 2 & 3 (i.e. the EVICTION PETITIONERS).,,

For the sake of convenience Petitioner in RC.REV. 599/2018 (also the Respondent No. 1 in RC.REV. 129/2020) shall be referred to as the,,

TENANT. Petitioner in RC.REV. 129/2020 (also the Respondent No. 3 in RC.REV. 599/2018) shall be referred to as the CO-OWNER. Respondent,,

No. 1 & 2 in RC.REV. 599/2018 (also the Respondent No. 2 & 3 in RC.REV. 129/2020) shall be referred to as the EVICTION PETITIONERS.,,

The EVICTION PETITIONERS filed the subject Eviction Petition under section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent  Control Act,",,

1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’) seeking eviction of the TENANT on the ground of bonafide necessity. The TENANT sought,,

leave to defend the eviction petition but by the impugned order dated 09.07.2018, the application seeking leave to defend filed by the TENANT has",,

been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed.,,

The EVICTION PETITIONERS contended in the eviction petition, that they are the co-owners of property bearing No. G â€" 3, situated in New",,

Delhi South Extension Market, N.D.S.E.-I, New Delhi-110049. Said property was purchased jointly by (i) Smt. Usha Rani Tandon, mother of the",,

EVICTION PETITIONERS, (ii) Sh. Ravi Shanker and (iii) Sh. Subhash Tandon by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1969. The sale deed",,

describes the shares of aforesaid persons in the property. The mother of the EVICTION PETITIONERS possessed 50% share in the said property.,,

It is contended that upon death of Smt. Usha Rani Tandon on 01.08.1993 and in pursuance to registered Relinquishment Deed dated 30.08.1993,,

executed by Sh. Purshottam Lai Tandon and Relinquishment Deed dated 30.08.1993 executed by Smt. Ritika Sachdev, EVICTION PETITIONERS",,

succeeded to the half share (50%) in the above said property. Other 25% share which was owned by Sh. Ravi Shankar has been succeeded by Sh.,,

Rajiv Tandon (Petitioner in RC.REV. 129/2020 the CO-OWNER). Remaining 25% in the property is now jointly owned by (i) Smt. Madhu Rani,,

Tandon, (ii) Sh. Sanjeev Tandon, (iii) Sh. Sumeet Tandon and (iv) Sh. Sudhir Tandon.",,

It is further contended that Smt. Usha Rani Tandon along with other co-owners entered into the lease agreement dated 12.05.1979 with the,,

TENANT for letting out one shop measuring 67 x 14.5 ft. on the ground floor of the entire property no. G â€" 3. The monthly rent was Rs. 1,000/-.",,

Later on, a basement measuring 46 x 14.5 ft. was constructed underneath this shop and the rate of rent was increased to Rs. 1,200/- per month. The",,

shop on the ground floor along with the basement underneath is the subject tenanted premises.,,

It is inter alia contended in the Eviction Petition that the EVICTION PETITIONERS require the tenanted premises to fulfill the bonafide need of,,

their children. It is stated that the son of Eviction petitioner no. 1 and elder daughter of Eviction petitioner no. 2, intend to start their own business in",,

partnership with each other, however, due to unavailability of any suitable commercial space they are unable to start the same.",,

It is contended that the Eviction Petitioner No. 1 has two sons (1) Kartik Tandon and (2) Kritin Tandon, while Eviction petitioner No. 2 has two",,

daughters namely (1) Ms. Revti Tandon and (2) Ms. Ujasvini Tandon. The son of Eviction Petitioner No. 1 (Sh. Kartik Tandon) and elder daughter of,,

Eviction Petitioner No.2 (Ms. Revti Tandon) have studied from Pearls Fashion Academy, New Delhi and are to start their own venture in partnership,",,

however, due to paucity and unavailability of any suitable and commercial space/accommodation, the partnership have not been able to carry their",,

business. It is contended that the EVICTION PETITIONERS, therefore, require the rented shop in occupation and possession of the TENANT to",,

have the showroom of their newly formed business, besides, they would require sufficient space for Accessories and for a Studio, which requirement",,

shall be met from the 50% share in part at the first floor and second floor of the property, likely to be possessed soon in the partition suit/proceedings",,

pending in the High Court.,,

It is contended that the son of the Eviction Petitioner No. l and the Daughter of Eviction Petitioner No. 2 are dependent on the EVICTION,,

PETITIONERS for requirement of commercial space so as to have a showroom and other commercial space for Accessories and a Studio for their,,

business.,,

It is further contended that the EVICTION PETITIONERS do not own any other commercial property in Delhi except the properties detailed in,,

the Eviction Petition i.e. l/6th undivided share each in the property at Karol Bagh and the 50% share jointly in the property in question viz. G â€" 3,",,

situate in N.D.S.E. Market, N.D.S.E.-I, New Delhi-110049 while the father of the EVICTION PETITIONERS also has certain share in the",,

abovementioned two immovable properties. It is contended that none of the above said properties except the property in question where the rented,,

premises is situated, is either available or suitable so as to meet the requirement of the children of the EVICTION PETITIONERS.",,

The TENANT applied for grant of leave to defend raising primarily six grounds as noticed by the Rent Controller.,,

First of all, it was contended that the tenanted premises is jointly owned by seven persons and since the other five owners have not given any",,

permission to the EVICTION PETITIONERS to initiate the eviction petition, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.",,

Secondly, it was contended that the deed of partnership for the proposed business executed between the children of the EVICTION",,

PETITIONERS, (who need the premises for their own use), was executed soon before the initiation of the present proceedings therefore, the",,

bonafide need as alleged is a false one and the children of the petitioners do not intend to start their own business venture at all.,,

Thirdly, it was contended that EVICTION PETITIONERS have various other suitable accommodations available with them to fulfill their alleged",,

bonafide need.,,

Fourthly, it was contended that the TENANT is a partnership firm and since the partners of this partnership firm have not been specifically sued,",,

therefore, the eviction petition is untenable in law.",,

Fifthly, it was contended that the basement in the tenanted premises was constructed at the expense of the partners of the TENANT firm in the",,

year 1981 â€" 82 with the understanding that since they have spent so much money in constructing the said basement, their possession over the same",,

shall never be disturbed.,,

Lastly, it was contended that the procedure prescribed under Section 25B of the Rent Act and the relief available to the landlord under section 14",,

(1) (e) of the Rent Act cannot be availed by the EVICTION PETITIONERS since the tenanted premises is a commercial premises and these,,

provisions are not applicable to commercial tenanted premises.,,

The Rent Controller in the impugned judgment has noticed that there is no dispute regarding the tenanted premises, the lease agreement dated",,

12.05.1979 and that the status as a tenant is admitted and it is also admitted that the EVICTION PETITIONERS are co-owners and co-landlords of,,

the tenanted premises.,,

The Rent Controller has held that the premises was let out to M/s Khanna Jewellers, a partnership firm and the eviction petition has also been filed",,

against M/s Khanna Jewellers and notice of the petition was also addressed to M/s Khanna Jewellers and the leave to defend has been filed by one of,,

the partners of M/s Khanna Jewellers, so the plea that the partners have not been separately impleaded is a minor technical defect and is not",,

sufficient to raise a triable issue.,,

Before this court, no challenge has been raised by learned senior counsel for the TENANT on the said ground.",,

With regard to the plea that the basement was constructed at the expense of the partners of the TENANT firm in the year 1981 â€" 82 with the,,

understanding that their possession over the same shall never be disturbed, no such ground/plea was raised before this court. Even otherwise, the Rent",,

Controller has held that nothing has been filed on record to show that any such alleged understanding regarding transfer of rights qua the basement,,

took place between the landlord and tenant and also as to when such an arrangement was arrived at and exactly between whom is not even,,

mentioned by the respondent in the leave to defend application, therefore, appears to be a bald, vague and unsubstantiated averment.",,

With regard to the ground taken in the leave to defend application that the relief available to the landlord under section 14 (1) (e) of the Rent Act,,

cannot be availed by the EVICTION PETITIONERS since the tenanted premises is a commercial premises and these provisions are not applicable to,,

commercial tenanted premises, the Rent Controller has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma versus Union of India",,

(2000) 5 SCC 287 that a landlord may seek eviction of tenant from a commercial property also invoking the provisions and procedure prescribed in,,

Section 25B and Section 14 (1)(e) of the Rent Act.,,

Before this court, the focus of the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the TENANT is with regard to the first three pleas raised",,

in the leave to defend application i.e. (i) that the Eviction Petition was not maintainable in the absence of the consent of the other co-owners; (ii),,

availability of alternative accommodation and (iii) the partnership between the daughter and son of the EVICTION PETITIONERS is a sham,,

partnership executed solely to create a ground for eviction.,,

It is contended by learned senior counsel for the TENANT that the Eviction Petition was filed without the consent of the other co-owners and as,,

such the petition was not maintainable. It is contended that all the seven co-owners and co-landlords are litigating amongst themselves for partitioning,,

the property at G-3, NDSE-I, New Delhi.",,

It is contended that the CO-OWNER has categorically stated in his written statement in the Partition Suit that the Eviction Petition has been filed,,

without consulting him. It is submitted that no eviction order can be passed against the tenant if a co-owner / co-landlord does not consent to such an,,

eviction. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari versus Gundappa Amabadas Bukate (1996) 6,,

SCC 373.,,

Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Girish s/o Dharamvir Madan versus Nanadkumar s/o,,

Shankarrao Rasne & Ors (2018) 13 SCC 255 to contend that till the Partition Suit is finally decreed, the Eviction Proceedings should remain stayed.",,

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further relies upon the decision of a coordinate bench of this court in Ranbir Yadav versus Life,,

Insurance Corporation of India (2018) 253 DLT 611 to contend that only one co-owner cannot terminate the tenancy, once there is objection of the",,

other co-owners.,,

Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to consider the scope of the Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25B(8) of the",,

Rent Act. The scope has been explained by the Supreme Court of India inS hiv Sarup Gupta versus Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr), (1999) 6 SCC 22 2as",,

under:,,

Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 finding its place in Chapter III-A of the Act was inserted in the body of the main Act by",,

Act 18 of 1976 with effect from 1-12-1975. It provides for a special procedure to be followed for the disposal of applications for eviction,,

on the ground of bona fide need. Obviously, this ground for eviction of the tenant has been treated on a footing different from the one on",,

which other grounds for eviction of the tenant stand. Section 25-B is a self-contained provision in the sense that remedy against an order,,

passed by the Rent Controller thereunder is also provided by that provision itself. Sub-section (8) provides that no appeal or second appeal,,

shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified,,

in Section 25-B:,,

“Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is",,

according to law (or not), call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.â€​",,

The phraseology of the provision as reproduced hereinbefore provides an interesting reading placed in juxtaposition with the phraseology,,

employed by the legislature in drafting Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the latter provision the exercise of revisional,,

jurisdiction of the High Court is circumscribed by the subordinate court having committed one of the three errors, namely (i) having",,

exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (ii) having failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) having exercised its jurisdiction",,

with illegality or material irregularity. Under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B, the expression governing the exercise of",,

revisional jurisdiction by the High Court is “for the purpose of satisfying if an order made by the Controller is according to lawâ€. The,,

revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 25-B(8) is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor so wide as,,

that of an appellate court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take,,

a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the",,

touchstone of “whether it is according to lawâ€. For that limited purpose it may enter into reappraisal of evidence, that is, for the",,

purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable,,

person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on a wrong",,

premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray a lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding,,

of the Controller “not according to law†calling for an interference under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act. A,,

judgment leading to a  miscarriage of justice is not a judgment according to law. (See: Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,,

[(1998) 8 SCC 119] and Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani [(1999) 1 SCC 141] .),,

(underlining supplied),,

Coming to the contention of the TENANT that the Eviction Petition was not maintainable in the absence of the consent of the other co-owners,",,

the Rent Controller, in the impugned judgment, has noticed that the legal position, that even one of the co-owners/co-landlords can file a suit for",,

eviction of a tenant, has not been disputed by the TENANT. The argument raised was that the filing of the Partition Suit between the co-owners",,

showed that the consent, which is usually presumed amongst co-landlords to file an eviction against a tenant, stood dispelled.",,

The Rent Controller further held that, from the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, it was clear that all the parties to the Partition Suit",,

were well aware of the pendency of this Eviction Petition and none had opposed or objected to these eviction proceedings. The Rent Controller has,,

further noticed that Rajiv Tandon, the CO-OWNER, who was impleaded in the Eviction Petition, neither objected to the maintainability of the petition",,

nor contended that the eviction of the TENANT was not desired by him also.,,

The Supreme Court of India in Kanta Goel versus B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 has held “that a co-owner is as much an owner of the",,

entire property as any sole owner. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the absence of the other co-owners disentitled the",,

1st respondent from suing for evictionâ€​.,,

In Dhannalal versus Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16, India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. versus Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by LRs",,

Savitri Agarwalla, (2004) 3 SCC 178 the Supreme Court of India held “that consent of co-owner is assumed, unless it is shown that other",,

co-owner is not agreeable to eject the tenant and the proceedings for ejectment are inspite of the disagreementâ€​.,,

The Supreme Court in Mohinder Prasad Jain versus Manohar Lal Jan (2006) 2 SCC 72 4has held that “a suit filed by a co-owner,",,

thus, is maintainable in law. It is not necessary for the co-owner to show before initiating the eviction proceedings before the Rent",,

Controller that he had taken option or consent of the other co-owners. However, in the event a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a",,

relevant fact.â€​,,

Before this Court the CO-OWNER â€" Rajiv Tandon, has filed an affidavit dated 10th February, 2020 and contended that the impugned order is",,

bad insofar as it grants exclusive possession to the EVICTION PETITIONERS as specific portions of the property have not been demarcated/allotted,,

to any of the co-owners. He has further stated that he also has bona fide need for the subject premises in question as the deponent has three grown,,

up children (2 sons and 1 daughter), for whose need and benefit he requires the subject premises in question and his need is greater than the bona fide",,

need of the EVICTION PETITIONERS.,,

As noticed hereinabove, Rajiv Tandon, the CO-OWNER has also filed a Petition (RC. REV. 129/2020) impugning the order dated 09.07.2018. In",,

the said Revision Petition also he has not objected to the eviction of the TENANT. He has prayed that the impugned order be set aside to the extent,,

the TENANT has been directed to deliver the possession to the EVICTION PETITIONERS.,,

Even before this court, the categorical submission of learned counsel appearing for the CO-OWNER is that he is not opposing the eviction of the",,

TENANT but contends that the possession should either be given jointly to the owners or leave to defend should be granted and evidence should be,,

led to show as to who out of the owners should be given possession.,,

It is noticed that the CO-OWNER neither before the Rent Controller nor before this court has objected to the eviction of the TENANT but has,,

only disputed the grant of possession to the EVICTION PETITIONERS. Even in the Affidavit filed by the CO-OWNER in the Revision Petition filed,,

by the TENANT and in the Revision Petition filed by him, he has not objected to eviction but has only claimed joint possession.",,

There is accordingly no opposition of objection by any of the other co-owners to the eviction of the TENANT.,,

Reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the TENANT on the judgment in Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari versus Gundappa Amabadas,,

Bukate (supra) is misplaced. In the said case the issue was with regard to splitting of tenancy and a co-sharer initiating action for eviction of the,,

tenant from a portion of the property and not the entire property. Said issue does not arise in the present case. The Eviction Petition has been filed for,,

the entire tenanted premises and not a portion thereof. There is no question of splitting of the tenancy.,,

The judgment in Ranbir Yadav versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), relied upon by learned senior counsel for the TENANT, is not",,

applicable to the facts of the present case. As noticed above the CO-OWNER has not objected to the eviction of the TENANT. The stand of the,,

CO-OWNER is only that exclusive possession cannot be given to the EVICTION PETITIONERS. Opposing eviction of the TENANT is different,,

from seeking joint or exclusive possession of the tenanted premises, post eviction of the TENANT.",,

Further, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the TENANT on the judgment in Girish s/o Dharamvir Madan Versus Nanadkumar s/o",,

Shankarrao Rasne & Ors is misplaced. In as much as in the said case a preliminary decree of partition had already been passed and the identification,,

of the respective shares was pending and the Supreme Court directed appointment of a commissioner to identify the respective shares of the parties,,

and pending the same kept the eviction proceedings in abeyance. In the present case there is no preliminary decree of partition and identification of,,

respective shares of parties.,,

In view of the above, the plea of the TENANT that as the other co-owners have not consented to the filing of the eviction petition and as such the",,

petition is not maintainable, does not hold any merit and does not give rise to any issue, which if proved, would disentitle the landlord from any order of",,

eviction.,,

Further, the submission of learned counsel for the CO-OWNER that possession should either be given jointly to the owners or leave to defend",,

should be granted and evidence should be led to show as to whom out of the owners should be given possession, is not sustainable. It may be noticed",,

that Rajeev Tandon - the CO-OWNER has only a 25% share in the property. The EVICTION PETITIONERS have 50% share and the remaining,,

25% co-owners have not come forward to oppose the petition. In any event the TENANT is not concerned with this issue and this would be a,,

question which would be determined by the concerned court before which the Partition Suit between the owners is pending.,,

S.No.,Property,Explanation of Petitioner

1.,"First and the second floor of property no. G3,

South Extension Market, Part I.","The first and the second floor is not as conducive for

a(cid:36)rac(cid:37)ng customers as the tenanted premises on the

ground floor. Addi(cid:37)onally that the first floor would be

required for a work studio for the ar(cid:37)cles which will be

exhibited in the ground floor showroom.

2.,"The first and the second floor of building no.

G11, South Extension Market, Part I.","Again being on the first and the second floor is not

suitable for the proposed business of the children of the

pe(cid:37)(cid:37)oner. Further, as admi(cid:36)ed by the respondent itself,

this property is not vacant and is in occupa(cid:37)on of

another tenant, since December 2014 i.e. more than a

year prior to filing of the present pe(cid:37)(cid:37)on. Also the

respondent has stated in the leave applica(cid:37)on that this

property is owned by the father of the petitioner.

3.,"Shop measuring 1800 sq. (cid:49). on ground floor of

building no. G11, South Extension Market, Part I.","This property is already let out to another commercial

tenant and no space is vacant. Further, it is the own case

of the respondent that this property is owned by the

father of the petitioner.

4.,"2874, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New

Delhi â€" 110005.","Business under the name and style of M/s Ushnak Ma

Moolchand is already being carried out from this

premises (in the leave itself the respondent has

men(cid:37)oned that indeed such a business is being carried

out). No space is vacant in this premises for star(cid:37)ng the

new business of the children of the petitioner.

PETITIONERS, shall immediately pay to the other co-owners of the property their respective share.",,

PENDING APPLICATIONS IN RC.REV.599/2018,,

CM APPLN. 52211/2018 (by TENANT for stay of impugned judgment),C M APPLN. 52213/2018 (by TENANT for permission to place on",,

record additional evidence), CM APPLN. 22274/2019 (by TENANT for vacation of order directing deposit of use and occupation charges),C M",,

APPLN. 13291/2020 (by EVICTION PETITIONERS for dismissal of Revision Petition for non compliance of order dated 16.01.2019),,

These applications are disposed of in terms of the orders passed in RC.REV.599/2018.,,

CM APPLN. 12142/2019 (by TENANT for condonation of delay in depositing charges),C M APPLN. 14710/2019 (by EVICTION",,

PETITIONERS for change of date)C, M APPLN.15856/2020 (by TENANT to consolidate with RC REV 129/.2020)C, M APPLN.15858/2020",,

(by TENANT for hearing through VC), CM APPLN. 18719/2020 (by TENANT for permission to deposit user charges)",,

In view of orders passed in RC.REV.599/2018, these applications are dismissed as infructuous.",,

CM APPLN. 29718/2019 (by EVICTION PETITIONERS under section 340 Cr.P.C. against the TENANT),,

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court does not find it expedient or in the interest of justice to direct conduct of any inquiry in",,

the allegations contained in the application.,,

The application is dismissed.,,

CM APPLN. 18720/2020 (by TENANT for exemption from filing attested affidavits),,

Exemption is allowed in accordance with the rules. The duly attested affidavits be filed within one week of the resumption of normal functioning of the,,

court.,,

CM APPLN. 13763/2019 (by EVICTION PETITIONERS for direction to TENANT to pay user charges from date of the eviction order),,

EVICTION PETITIONERS seek a direction to the TENANT to pay use and occupation charges from the date of the eviction order.,,

It is contended that in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Versus Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC,,

705 the use and occupation charges are liable to be paid from the date of the eviction order (i.e. 09.07.2018) and not from 09.01.2019 i.e. after the,,

expiry of the period of six months of the eviction order.,,

It may be noticed that in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court directed that while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of,,

Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its",,

opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the",,

appeal being dismissed and insofar as those proceedings are concerned.,,

In the present case, the Eviction Petition has been filed under section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act and the eviction order was passed on 09.07.2018. In",,

terms of Section 14(7) of the Rent Act, the landlord was not entitled to obtain possession of the premises before the expiration of a period of six",,

months from the date of the eviction order i.e. till 09.01.2019.,,

The eviction petition in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.(supra) had been filed on the ground of sub-letting under section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Act,",,

where there is no such restriction as imposed by Section 14(1)(7) of the Rent Act.,,

Accordingly, the EVICTION PETITIONERS are not entitled to recover use and occupation charges for the period 09.07.2018 till 08.01.2019,",,

during which period there was a statutory bar from recovery of possession. The stay order in the Revision Petition came into effect only from,,

09.01.2019 and the TENANT has been directed to pay use and occupation charges from the said date.,,

The application is accordingly dismissed.,,

Copy of the Judgment be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels for the parties through email by the Court,,

Master.,,