Bharat Deep Sethi v. Sonia Takkar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. Banumathi
S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment Date: 2017-10-12
Court Decision / Holding: 1) The appellant-tenant is directed to pay Rs.40,000 per month from June 2017 towards use and occupation, to be paid directly to the landlord; arrears at Rs.40,000 per month from June 2017 to be paid within four weeks after deducting amounts already paid; the tenant shall continue to pay rent at Rs.40,000. 2) The impugned orders dated 21.07.2017 and 25.07.2017 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the revision on merits, with a preferably expeditious timetable (three months). The High Court is to allow both parties to raise all contentions; no coercive steps shall be taken by the landlord until disposal. 3) The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bharat Deep Sethi

Respondents

Sonia Takkar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rajiv K. Garg
• Ashish Garg
• Rajeev Kapoor
• Harsh Nagar
• T. L. Garg

Counsels for Respondents

• D Sudhir Mendiratta

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Civil Appeals arise from interim orders of the Delhi High Court directing the tenant, Bharat Deep Sethi, to pay Rs 1,25,000 per month as rent and use-and-occupation from June 2017 till July 2017, and to continue paying thereafter. The Rent Controller had dismissed the tenant’s leave to defend in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord. The High Court’s interim order fixed a substantial sum, in a small commercial space (Shop No. 2/9 Roop Nagar, Delhi, about 190 sq ft), which the landlord claimed is valuable and suitable for commercial use. The tenant argued that there is no established landlord-tenant relationship and that the interim sum was excessive; they sought an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The landlord contended the property’s prime commercial character warranted a high interim payment and urged expeditious disposal on merits. The Supreme Court did not decide the merits, but directed a modification of the interim arrangement: the tenant must pay Rs 40,000 per month from June 2017 toward use and occupation, with arrears payable within four weeks after deducting amounts already paid, and the rent to continue at Rs 40,000. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the revision on merits, with both sides allowed to raise all contentions, and no coercive steps shall be taken until final disposal. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-tenant argued that the Rent Controller’s dismissal of leave to defend was misplaced and that the interim order demanding Rs.1.25 lakh per month did not reflect a merited assessment of the case. The tenant contended there is no established landlord-tenant relationship and emphasized the need for a merits-based adjudication on revision. They urged that a meaningful opportunity be provided to raise all contentions, including the factual and legal basis of their defence, and that coercive steps should not be taken while the matter is pending final disposal. They highlighted the small physical size of the premises (approximately 190 sq ft) and questioned the proportionality of the interim rent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-landlord argued that the property is prime commercial space and the interim order reflecting Rs.1.25 lakh per month reflects its value; eviction on the landlord’s claimed grounds is sought, and the tenant’s use and occupation charge should be maintained until merits are resolved. The landlord requested that the revision petition be disposed of on merits and that interim measures be preserved to safeguard their rights pending final adjudication.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2017] 10 S.C.R. 531 A ## BHARAT DEEP SETHI v. ## SONIA TAK.KAR ( CivilAppeal Nos.16809-16810of2017) ## OCTOBER 12,2017 B [R. BANUMATHI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] _Rent Control and Eviction_ - _Suit for eviction by respondentlandlord_ - _Application filed by appellant-tenant before Rent Controller seeking leave to defend, dismissed_ __: _Revision petition_ c _filed by tenant before High Court wherein vide interim orders it was directed to pay Rs.1,25,0001- p.m. w.e.f_ 7[11] ' _June, 2017 till the end of month of.July, 2017 and continue to pay the said amount w.e.f the month of August, 2017_ - _On appeal, held: Without going into the merits of the case, tenant is directed to pay Rs.40,000/- p.m. from the month of June, 2017,_ toward~ _use and occupation_ -Arreat:~ D @ _Rs.40,000/- p.m. from June 2017 shall be paid to the landlord withi/1 a period of four weeks' after deduction of the amount already paid_ - _The tenant shall continue to pay rent_ @ _Rs.40,0001-_ - _Impugned orders set aside_ - _Howey.e1; an opportunity should be_ · _qfforded to the tenant to raise all the_ c~ntentionslissues - _Matter_ E _remitted back to High Court for considering the revision petition afresh_ - _Till the matter is finally disp/ised of by the High Court, no coercive· steps shall be taken by landlord._ .I Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Without going into the merits of the rival F contentions, the appellant-tenant is directed 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 Rs.40,000/- per month from June, 2017 shall be paid to the landlord within a period G of four weeks deducting the amount ·already paid by the tenant. The tenant shall continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 40,000/to the landlord. [Para 5) [533-D] 2. An opportunity should be afforded to the appellant-tenant to raise all the contentions/ issues ... T:he matter is remitted back H 531 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS _[2017]_ I 0 S.C.R. - A to the High Court for consideration afresh. The High Court is requested 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 arc left - B open. Till the matter is finally disposed of by the High Court, no coercive steps shall be taken by the landlord. (Para 6) [533-E-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. l 680916810of20l7. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2017 in CM No. 25602/ C 2017 in RC. REV. No. 102/2017 and25.07.2017 in CM No. 26153/2017 in RC. Rev. No. 102/2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish Garg, Rajeev Kapoor, Harsh Nagar, . T. L. Garg, Advs. for the Appellants. D Sudhir Mendiratta, Adv. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been filed against the interim impugned E orders dated 21" July, 2017 in C.M.No.25602/2017 and in RC.Review No.102/2017 dated 25'h July, 2017, in and by which the High Court directed the appellant-tenant to pay an amount ofRs.1,25,000/-per month with effect from 7°[1 ] June, 2017 till the end of the month July, 2017 and also continue to pay the said amount to the respondent-landlord with F effect from the month of August, 2017. 3. Brief facts are that virtue ofan unregistered lease deed executed on 13[111 ] March, 2000, the appellant-tenant is on rent in the suit property being Shop No. I, situated on the ground floor, _219_ Roop Nagar, Delhi. The respondent-landlord claims to have purchased the property by virtue ofa registered sale deed dated 07.02.2011 from the trust. The respondentG landlord has filed the suit for eviction before the 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 H appellant-tenant approached the High Court. By the impugned order, 533 BHARAT DEEP SETHI v. SONIA TAKK.AR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] the High CoUit has directed the appellant-tenant to pay a sum ofRs.1.25 Lacs per month. A 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 appellanttenant has got any' triable issue. The apellanHenant 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 montli. 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. B C 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 D Rs.40,000/- per month from June, 2017 shall be paid to the respondentlandlord within a period of four weeks deducting the amount already paid by the appellant-tenant to the respondent-landlord. The appellanttenant shall continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent-landlord. E 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. F G 7. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appeals disposed of. Divya Pandey