Bharat Deep Sethi v. Sonia TAK.KAR

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 13111 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 respondent- G 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, BHARAT DEEP SETHI v. SONIA TAKK.AR 533 [R. BANUMATHI, J.] the High CoUit has directed the appellant-tenant to pay a sum ofRs.1.25 A 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 apellanHenant is stated to be in B 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 C 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 D 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. 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. 7. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.