Bata INDIA Limited vs. Tasleem

Held

The Court decided to grant the petitioner time to vacate the premises until December 31, 2020. The petitioner was directed to pay user/occupation charges of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, and Rs. 1,70,000/- per month from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. These payments were to be made by the 10th of each month. The petitioner was also required to clear all outstanding rental arrears within four weeks from the date of the order. The respondent was to furnish any necessary documentation for TDS/GST concerning the rental of the premises within four weeks or as and when due, with the liability for any GST payment falling on the petitioner. The Court also stipulated that any default in payment or otherwise by the petitioner would lead to immediate eviction. The petition was disposed of in light of these agreed terms.

Facts

This matter concerns a revision petition filed by Bata India Limited (the petitioner) challenging an order dated July 21, 2018, passed by the CCJ cum ARC (Pilot Court) Central Delhi in Eviction Petition No. 777/17. The impugned order dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to defend and granted an eviction order for the premises in question. During the proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel indicated they were not inclined to challenge the eviction order on merits if granted time until December 31, 2020, to vacate the premises. The respondent agreed to this, subject to the petitioner paying user/occupation charges. An agreement was reached on the monthly user/occupation charges and the timeline for vacating the premises.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted time to vacate the premises beyond the eviction order date, and if so, under what conditions regarding user/occupation charges. The petitioner argued that they were not inclined to challenge the eviction order on merits if granted an extension of time to vacate the premises until December 31, 2020. The respondent, while agreeing to the extension, argued that user/occupation charges should be paid on market rent, which they stated was Rs. 2.37 Lac per month, based on an adjoining shop. The petitioner objected to this amount. The Court had to determine a mutually agreeable amount for user/occupation charges and the terms of vacating the premises.