{"id":251074,"date":"2004-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004"},"modified":"2015-08-20T13:20:46","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T07:50:46","slug":"ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7988 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nCJI R.C. LAHOTI & G.P. MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6415 of 2002]<\/p>\n
R.C. Lahoti, CJI<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe suit premises are non-residential commercial premises
\nadmeasuring approximately 1000 sq. ft. and situated in
\nConnaught Circus, New Delhi.  The premises are owned by the
\nappellant and held on tenancy by the respondent on a monthly
\nrent of Rs.371.90p. per month. The tenancy had commenced
\nsometime in the year 1944 and it appears that ever since then
\nthe rent has remained static.  Admittedly, the provisions of the
\nDelhi Rent Control Act<\/a> 1958, (hereinafter ‘the Act’, for short) are
\napplicable to the premises.\n<\/p>\n
\tSometime in the year 1992, the appellant initiated
\nproceedings for the eviction of the respondent on the ground
\navailable under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 14<\/a> of
\nthe Act alleging that the respondent had illegally sublet the
\npremises to M\/s. Jay Vee Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the sub-
\ntenant was running its showroom in the premises.  Vide order
\ndated 19.3.2002, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi held the
\nground for eviction made out and ordered the respondent to be
\nevicted. The respondent preferred an appeal under Section 38<\/a> of
\nthe Act.  By order dated 12.4.2001, the Rent Control Tribunal
\ndirected the eviction of the respondent to remain stayed but
\nsubject to the condition that the respondent shall deposit in the
\nCourt Rs.15,000\/- per month, in addition to the contractual rent
\nwhich may be paid directly to the appellant.  The deposits were
\npermitted to be made either in cash or by way of fixed deposits
\nin the name of the appellant and directed to be retained with the
\nCourt and not permitted to be withdrawn by either party until
\nthe appeal was finally decided. Raising a plea that the
\nrespondent could not have been directed during the pendency of
\nthe proceedings at any stage to pay or tender to the landlord or
\ndeposit in the Court any amount in excess of the contractual rate
\nof rent, the respondent filed a petition under Article 227<\/a> of the
\nConstitution putting in issue the condition as to deposit
\nRs.15,000\/- per month imposed by the Tribunal.  By order dated
\n12.2.2002, which is impugned herein, the learned single Judge
\nof the High Court has allowed the petition and set aside the said
\ncondition imposed by the Tribunal.  The effect of the order of the
\nHigh Court is that during the pendency of appeal before the
\nTribunal the respondent shall continue to remain in occupation of
\nthe premises subject to payment of an amount equivalent to the
\ncontractual rate of rent. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord
\n(appellant) has filed this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
\tOrdinarily this Court does not interfere with discretionary
\norders, more so when they are of interim nature, passed by the
\nHigh Court or subordinate Courts\/Tribunals.  However, this
\nappeal raises an issue of frequent recurrence and, therefore, we
\nhave heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
\nLandlord-tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk of litigation
\npending in the Courts and Tribunals. The litigation goes on for
\nunreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the
\npremises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or
\nrevisions so long as they can thereby afford to perpetuate the
\nlife of litigation and continue in occupation of the premises.  If
\nthe plea raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondent
\nwas to be accepted, the tenant, in spite of having lost at the
\nend, does not loose anything and rather stands to gain as he has
\nenjoyed the use and occupation of the premises, earned as well
\na lot from the premises if they are non-residential in nature and
\nall that he is held liable to pay is damages for use and
\noccupation at the same rate at which he would have paid even
\notherwise by way of rent and a little amount of costs which is
\ngenerally insignificant.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri K. Ramamurthy, the learned senior counsel for the
\nappellant submitted that once a decree or order for eviction has
\nbeen passed, the tenant is liable to be evicted and if he files an
\nappeal or revision and opts for retaining use and occupation of
\nthe premises, he should be prepared to compensate the landlord
\nby paying such amount as the landlord would have been able to
\nearn in the event of the premises being vacated and, therefore,
\nthe superior court, passing an order of stay, acts well within its
\ndiscretionary jurisdiction by putting on terms the appellant who
\nseeks an order of stay.  On the other hand, Shri Ranjit Kumar,
\nthe learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent,
\ndefended the order of the High Court by raising several pleas
\nnoticed shortly hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe order of eviction passed by Rent Controller is
\nappealable to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38<\/a> of the
\nAct.  There is no specific provision in the Act conferring power on
\nthe Tribunal to grant stay on the execution of the order of
\neviction passed by the Controller, but sub-Section (3) of Section
\n38<\/a> confers the Tribunal with all the powers vested in a Court
\nunder the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while hearing an appeal.
\nThe provision empowers the Tribunal to pass an order of stay by
\nreference to Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure
\n1908 (hereinafter ‘the Code’, for short).  This position was not
\ndisputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for either of
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-Rule (1) and (3) of Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code
\nread as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“R.5\tStay by Appellate Court<\/p>\n
\t(1)  An appeal shall not operate as a stay
\nof proceedings under a decree or order
\nappealed from except so far as the Appellate
\nCourt may order, nor shall execution of a
\ndecree be stayed by reason only of an appeal
\nhaving been preferred from the decree; but the
\nAppellate Court may for sufficient cause order
\nstay of execution of such decree.\n<\/p>\n
Xxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
\t(3)  No order for stay of execution shall
\nbe made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2)
\nunless the court making it is satisfied ___<\/p>\n
(a)\tthat substantial loss may result to the
\nparty applying for stay of execution
\nunless the order is made;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthat the application has been made
\nwithout unreasonable delay; and<\/p>\n
(c)\tthat security has been given by the
\napplicant for the due performance of
\nsuch decree or order as may ultimately
\nbe binding upon him.\n<\/p>\n
xxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal does not
\noperate as stay on the decree or order appealed against nor on
\nthe proceedings in the court below.  A prayer for the grant of
\nstay of proceedings or on the execution of decree or order
\nappealed against has to be specifically made to the appellate
\nCourt and the appellate Court has discretion to grant an order of
\nstay or to refuse the same.  The only guiding factor, indicated in
\nthe Rule 5 aforesaid, is the existence of sufficient cause in favour
\nof the appellant on the availability of which the appellate Court
\nwould be inclined to pass an order of stay. Experience shows
\nthat the principal consideration which prevails with the appellate
\nCourt is that in spite of the appeal having been entertained for
\nhearing by the appellate Court, the appellant may not be
\ndeprived of the fruits of his success in the event of the appeal
\nbeing allowed.  This consideration is pitted and weighed against
\nthe other paramount consideration: why should a party having
\nsucceeded from the Court below be deprived of the fruits of the
\ndecree or order in his hands merely because the defeated party
\nhas chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of a superior forum.  Still
\nthe question which the Court dealing with a prayer for the grant
\nof stay asks to itself is:  Why the status quo prevailing on the
\ndate of the decree and\/or the date of making of the application
\nfor stay be not allowed to continue by granting stay, and not the
\nquestion why the stay should be granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tDispossession, during the pendency of an appeal of a party
\nin possession, is generally considered to be ‘substantial loss’ to
\nthe party applying for stay of execution within the meaning of
\nclause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code.
\nClause (c) of the same provision mandates security for the due
\nperformance of the decree or order as may ultimately be passed
\nbeing furnished by the applicant for stay as a condition
\nprecedent to the grant of order of stay.  However, this is not the
\nonly condition which the appellate Court can impose.  The power
\nto grant stay is discretionary and flows from the jurisdiction
\nconferred on an appellate Court which is equitable in nature.  To
\nsecure an order of stay merely by preferring an appeal is not the
\nstatutory right conferred on the appellant. So also, an appellate
\nCourt is not ordained to grant an order of stay merely because
\nan appeal has been preferred and an application for an order of
\nstay has been made.  Therefore, an applicant for order of stay
\nmust do equity for seeking equity.  Depending on the facts and
\ncircumstances of a given case an appellate Court, while passing
\nan order of stay, may put the parties on such terms the
\nenforcement whereof would satisfy the demand for justice of the
\nparty found successful at the end of the appeal. In South
\nEastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (2003) 8
\nSCC 648, this Court while dealing with interim orders granted in
\nfavour of any party to litigation for the purpose of extending
\nprotection to it, effective during the pendency of the
\nproceedings, has held that such interim orders, passed at an
\ninterim stage, stand reversed in the event of the final decision
\ngoing against the party successful in securing interim orders in
\nits favour; and the successful party at the end would be justified
\nin demanding compensation and being placed in the same
\nsituation in which it would have been if the interim order would
\nnot have been passed against it. The successful party can
\ndemand (a) the delivery to it of benefit earned by the opposite
\nparty under the interim order of the High Court, or (b)
\ncompensation for what it has lost, and to grant such relief is the
\ninherent jurisdiction of the Court.  In our opinion, while granting
\nan order of stay under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, the appellate
\ncourt does have jurisdiction to put the party seeking stay order
\non such terms as would reasonably compensate the party
\nsuccessful at the end of the appeal in so far as those
\nproceedings are concerned.  \tThus, for example, though a
\ndecree for payment of money is not ordinarily stayed by the
\nappellate Court, yet, if it exercises its jurisdiction to grant stay in
\nan exceptional case it may direct the appellant to make payment
\nof the decretal amount with interest as a condition precedent to
\nthe grant of stay, though the decree under appeal does not
\nmake provision for payment of interest by the judgment-debtor
\nto the decree-holder. Robust commonsense, common knowledge
\nof human affairs and events gained by judicial experience and
\njudicially noticeable facts, over and above the material available
\non record  – all these provide useful inputs as relevant facts for
\nexercise of discretion while passing an order and formulating the
\nterms to put the parties on. After all, in the words of Chief
\nJustice Chandrachud, speaking for the Constitution Bench in
\nOlga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and
\nOrs.  (1985) 3 SCC 545, – “commonsense which is a cluster of
\nlife’s experiences, is often more dependable than the rival facts
\npresented by warring litigants”.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondent, submitted that during the pendency of the appeal
\nthe tenant-appellant cannot be directed to pay any amount over
\nand above the amount of contractual rent unless and until the
\ndecree or order of eviction has achieved a finality because, in
\nview of the protection of rent control legislation enjoyed by the
\ntenant, he shall continue to remain a tenant and would not
\nbecome a person in unlawful possession of the property until the
\ndecree has achieved a finality from the highest forum upto which
\nthe litigation is pursued. Reliance was placed on the decision of
\nthis Court in Smt. Chander Kali Bai & Ors. Vs. Shri Jagdish
\nSingh Thakur & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 402, followed in Vashu
\nDeo Vs. Balkishan, (2002) 2 SCC 50. This submission raises
\nthe following two issues:- (i) in respect of premises enjoying the
\nprotection of rent control legislation, when does the tenancy
\nterminate; and (ii) upto what point of time the tenant is liable to
\npay rent at the contractual rate and when does he become liable
\nto pay to the landlord compensation for use and occupation of
\nthe tenancy premises unbound by the contractual rate of rent?\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder the general law, and in cases where the tenancy is
\ngoverned only by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act<\/a>,
\n1882, once the tenancy comes to an end by determination of
\nlease under Section 111<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act, the right
\nof the tenant to continue in possession of the premises comes to
\nan end and for any period thereafter, for which he continues to
\noccupy the premises, he becomes liable to pay damages for use
\nand occupation at the rate at which the landlord could have let
\nout the premises on being vacated by the tenant. In the case of
\nChander Kali Bai & Ors. (supra) the tenancy premises were
\nsituated in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the provisions of
\nthe M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 applied. The suit for
\neviction was filed on 8th March 1973 after serving a notice on the
\ntenant terminating the contractual tenancy w.e.f. 31st December
\n1972.  The suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court but
\ndecreed in first appeal decided on 11th August, 1975. One of the
\nsubmissions made in this Court on behalf of the tenant-appellant
\nwas that no damages from the date of termination of the
\ncontractual tenancy could be awarded; the damages could be
\nawarded only from the date when an eviction decree was
\npassed. This Court took into consideration the definition of
\ntenant as contained in Section 2(i)<\/a> of the M.P. Act which included
\n“any person continuing in possession after the termination of his
\ntenancy” but did not include “any person against whom any
\norder or decree for eviction has been made”. The court,
\npersuaded by the  said definition, held that a person continuing
\nin possession of the accommodation even after the termination
\nof his contractual tenancy is a tenant within the meaning of the
\nM.P. Act<\/a> and on such termination his possession does not
\nbecome wrongful until and unless a decree for eviction is passed.
\nHowever, the Court specifically ruled that the tenant continuing
\nin possession even after the passing of the decree became a
\nwrongful occupant of the accommodation.  In conclusion the
\nCourt held that the tenant was not liable to pay any damages or
\nmesne profits for the period commencing from 1st January 1973
\nand ending on 10th August 1975 but he remained liable to pay
\ndamages or mesne profits from 11th August 1975 until the
\ndelivery of the vacant possession of the accommodation.  During
\nthe course of its decision this Court referred to a decision of
\nMadhya Pradesh High Court in Kikabhai Abdul Hussain Vs.
\nKamlakar, 1974 MPLJ 485, wherein the High Court had held
\nthat if a person continues to be in occupation after the
\ntermination of the contractual tenancy then on the passing of the
\ndecree for eviction he becomes a wrongful occupant of the
\naccommodation since the date of termination.  This Court opined
\nthat what was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court seemed
\nto be a theory akin to the theory of “relation back” on the
\nreasoning that on the passing of a decree for possession, the
\ntenant’s possession would become unlawful not from the date of
\nthe decree but from the date of the termination of the
\ncontractual tenancy itself.  It is noteworthy that this Court has
\nnot disapproved the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
\nin Kikabhai Abdul Hussain’s case but distinguished it by
\nobserving that the law laid down in Kikabhai Abdul Hussain’s
\ncase was not applicable to the case before it in view of the
\ndefinition of ‘tenant’ as contained in the M.P. Act<\/a> and the
\nprovisions which came up for consideration of the High Court in
\nKikabhai Abdul Hussain’s case were different.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance, by the learned counsel for the respondent, on the
\ncase of Vashu Deo (supra) is misconceived, inasmuch as, in
\nthat case the Court was dealing with the rule of estoppel of
\ntenant for holding that the tenant was estopped from disputing
\nthe title of his landlord so long as he continued in possession of
\nthe tenancy premises and until he had restored the landlord into
\npossession.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Shyam Sharan Vs. Sheoji Bhai & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC
\n393, this Court has upheld the principle that the tenant
\ncontinuing in occupation of the tenancy premises after the
\ntermination of tenancy is an unauthorized and wrongful occupant
\nand a decree for damages or mesne profits can be passed for the
\nperiod of such occupation, till the date he delivers the vacant
\npossession to the landlord. With advantage and approval, we
\nmay refer to a decision of the Nagpur High Court. In
\nBhagwandas Vs. Mst. Kokabai, AIR 1953 Nagpur 186, the
\nlearned Chief Justice of Nagpur High Court held that the rent
\ncontrol order, governing the relationship of landlord and tenant,
\nhas no relevance for determining the question of what should be
\nthe measure of damages which a successful landlord should get
\nfrom the tenant for being kept out of the possession and
\nenjoyment of the property. After determination of the tenancy,
\nthe position of the tenant is akin to that of a trespasser and he
\ncannot claim that the measure of damages awardable to the
\nlandlord should be kept tagged to the rate of rent payable under
\nthe provisions of the rent control order. If the real value of the
\nproperty is higher than the rent earned then the amount of
\ncompensation for continued use and occupation of the property
\nby the tenant can be assessed at the higher value.  We find
\nourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Nagpur High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tPlacing reliance on the decision of this Court in
\nKunhayammed & Ors Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6
\nSCC 359, Shri Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel
\nsubmitted that the decree of trial Court merges in the decree of
\nthe appellate Court and, therefore, the tenant shall continue to
\nremain a tenant (and shall not become an unlawful occupant),
\nuntil the passing of decree by the highest Court because the
\ndecree would achieve a finality only when the proceedings have
\nfinally terminated and then the decree of trial Court shall stand
\nmerged in the decree of the appellate Court, the date whereof
\nonly would be relevant for determining the nature of occupation
\nof the tenant.  We are not impressed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Kunhayammed & Ors. (supra), this Court, on an
\nelaborate discussion of the available authorities, held that once
\nthe superior Court has disposed of the lis before it either way,
\ni.e. whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or
\nmodified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the
\nsuperior Court, Tribunal or authority which is the final, binding
\nand operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or
\norder passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below.
\nHowever, this Court has also observed that the doctrine of
\nmerger is not of universal or unlimited application.  In spite of
\nmerger the actual fact would remain that it was the decree or
\norder appealed against which had directed the termination of
\ntenancy with effect from which date the tenant had ceased to be
\nthe tenant, and the obligation of the tenant to deliver possession
\nover the tenancy premises came into operation though the same
\nremained suspended because of the order of stay.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are, therefore, of the opinion that the tenant having
\nsuffered a decree or order for eviction may continue his fight
\nbefore the superior forum but, on the termination of the
\nproceedings and the decree or order of eviction first passed
\nhaving been maintained, the tenancy would stand terminated
\nwith effect from the date of the decree passed by the lower
\nforum. In the case of premises governed by rent control
\nlegislation, the decree of eviction on being affirmed, would be
\ndeterminative of the date of termination of tenancy and the
\ndecree of affirmation passed by the superior forum at any
\nsubsequent stage or date, would not, by reference to the
\ndoctrine of merger have the effect of postponing the date of
\ntermination of tenancy.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the Delhi Rent Control Act<\/a> 1958, the definition of ‘a
\ntenant’ is contained in clause (l) of Section 2<\/a>.  Tenant includes
\n‘any person continuing in possession after the termination of his
\ntenancy’ and does not include ‘any person against whom an
\norder or decree for eviction has been made’.  This definition is
\nidentical with the definition of tenant dealt with by this Court in
\nChander Kali Bai & Ors. case (supra).  The tenant-respondent
\nherein having suffered an order for eviction on 19.3.2001, his
\ntenancy would be deemed to have come to an end with effect
\nfrom that date and he shall become an unauthorized occupant.
\nIt would not make any difference if the order of eviction has
\nbeen put in issue in appeal or revision and is confirmed by the
\nsuperior forum at a latter date. The date of termination of
\ntenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of
\nmerger.\n<\/p>\n
\tThat apart, it is to be noted that the appellate Court while
\nexercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code did
\nhave power to put the tenant-appellant on terms.  The tenant
\nhaving suffered an order for eviction must comply and vacate
\nthe premises.  His right of appeal is statutory but his prayer for
\ngrant of stay is dealt with in exercise of equitable discretionary
\njurisdiction of the appellate Court.  While ordering stay the
\nappellate Court has to be alive to the fact that it is depriving the
\nsuccessful landlord of the fruits of the decree and is postponing
\nthe execution of the order for eviction.  There is every
\njustification for the appellate Court to put the tenant-appellant
\non terms and direct the appellant to compensate the landlord by
\npayment of a reasonable amount which is not necessarily the
\nsame as the contractual rate of rent.  In Marshall Sons & Co.
\n(I) Ltd.  Vs.  Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr.,  (1999) 2 SCC
\n325, this Court has held that once a decree for possession has
\nbeen passed and execution is delayed depriving the judgment-
\ncreditor of the fruits of decree, it is necessary for the Court to
\npass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profits which
\nmay be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is
\nholding over the property.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo sum up, our conclusions are:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\twhile passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court does
\nhave jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable
\nterms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the
\ndecree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of
\ndecree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the
\nappeal being dismissed and in so far as those proceedings
\nare concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be
\nreasonable;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tin case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi
\nRent Control Act<\/a>, 1958, in view of the definition of tenant
\ncontained in clause (l) of Section 2<\/a> of the Act, the tenancy
\ndoes not stand terminated merely by its termination under
\nthe general law; it terminates with the passing of the
\ndecree for eviction.  With effect from that date, the tenant
\nis liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and
\noccupation of the premises at the same rate at which the
\nlandlord would have been able to let out the premises and
\nearn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises.
\nThe landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent
\neffective for the period preceding the date of the decree;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tthe doctrine of merger does not have the effect of
\npostponing the date of termination of tenancy merely
\nbecause the decree of eviction stands merged in the
\ndecree passed by the superior forum at a latter date.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the
\ntenant has been paying Rs.371.90p. rent of the premises since
\n1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed
\nsince that day. The premises are situated in the prime
\ncommercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was
\npointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging
\nto the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. have been
\nrecently let out on rent at the rate of Rs.3,50,000\/- per month.
\nThe Rent Control Tribunal was right in putting the tenant on
\nterm of payment of Rs.15,000\/- per month as charges for use
\nand occupation during the pendency of appeal.  The Tribunal
\ntook extra care to see that the amount was retained in deposit
\nwith it until the appeal was decided so that the amount in
\ndeposit could be disbursed by the appellate Court consistently
\nwith the opinion formed by it at the end of the appeal. No fault
\ncan be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal.  The
\nHigh Court has interfered with the impugned order of the
\nTribunal on an erroneous assumption that any direction for
\npayment by the tenant to the landlord of any amount at any rate
\nabove the contractual rate of rent could not have been made.
\nWe cannot countenance the view taken by the High Court.  We
\nmay place on record that it has not been the case of the tenant-
\nrespondent before us, nor was it in the High Court, that the
\namount of Rs.15,000\/- assessed by the Rent Control Tribunal
\nwas unreasonable or grossly on the higher side.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed.  The
\norder of the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal
\nrestored with costs incurred in the High Court and in this Court.
\nHowever, the tenant-respondent is allowed six weeks’ time,
\ncalculated from today, for making deposits and clearing the
\narrears upto the date consistent with the order of the Rent
\nControl Tribunal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004 Author: R Lahoti Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7988 of 2004 PETITIONER: M\/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. RESPONDENT: M\/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/2004 BENCH: CJI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-20T07:50:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\\\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T07:50:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4472,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\\\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T07:50:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\\\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-20T07:50:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T07:50:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004"},"wordCount":4472,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004","name":"M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T07:50:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-atma-ram-properties-p-ltd-vs-ms-federal-motors-pvt-ltd-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M\/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=251074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}