M/s. Panna Lal and sons vs Arun Kumar and others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The parties to the present petition are tenant and landlords, respectively. On a petition for eviction having been filed by the landlords against the petitioner, the latter has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, which according to the landlords are residential in nature comprising of three rooms, verandha, kitchen and bath room, but according to the tenant the premises in question are comprised of a godown.

Admittedly, the premises were let-out long time back at an yearly rent of Rs. 535/- . The tenant, whose appeal is pending before the learned Appellate Authority has suffered the impugned order dated 11.01.2011, whereby it has been ordered to pay monthly use and occupation charges in respect of the tenanted premises to the landlords @ of Rs. 5000/- per month. According to the tenant, the amount of use and occupation charges has been fixed at a very higher side. However, according to the landlords the same is on a lower side as their claim was for Rs. 10,000/- per month. In support of the rival contentions reliance has been placed on behalf of the parties on the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and Others,

Admittedly, the rented premises are situate at Lower Bazar, Shimla, which is the hub of commercial activity in the capital town of Shimla. this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that in like cases there is trend of this Court to fix use and occupation charges taking into consideration the present day realities. In any case even if it is admitted for a moment for the sake of argument that the demised premises are comprised of a godown, that too would also be a commercial activity and if the tenant is affording to maintain a godown in Lower Bazar, Shimla, apart from its usual commercial premises in the same locality, it can be reasonably expected to be doing good business.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and on a overall view of the matter, I am satisfied that the amount of use and occupation charges fixed by the learned Appellate Authority ex facie appears to be reasonable and justified and more so when the same has been ordered to be deposited with the said authority and disbursed only in terms of the final decision in the appeal, pending adjudication between the parties before the said authority.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.