IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO 701 of 2008. Date of decision December 19, 2008. Shri Brij Lal and another … Appellants. Versus Santan Dharam Sabha (Retd.) … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mr. S.R.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr Balwant Kukreja, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The appellant before the Appellate Authority has challenged the order dated 23.10.2008 on an application moved by the landlord respondent with a prayer for determination of the mesne profits of the land and constructed portion thereon. The learned Rent Controller in a petition for eviction under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act ordered eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting. The learned court held that Brij Lal who appeared as RW-1, has admitted that he sublet 40/50 rooms of the suit premises. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - The petitioners herein filed an appeal before the learned appellate authority in which the order passed has been challenged. The learned Court has imposed a condition that there was no material before the learned Appellate Authority to hold that the use and occupation charges of the property i.e. land and buildings was Rs.25,000/- per month. A reading of the order shows that the Court holds that the admitted fact is that the premises and land are within the municipal limits of Shimla and near the National Highway. The Court holds that it is a big chunk of property comprising of residential quarters etc. let out by the respondent- landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sadhu Ram v. Parminder Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 132, laying down the principles for determining the quantum of use and occupation charges. He submits that the rent claimed by the respondent herein was only Rs.1000/- per month and there was no material before the learned Appellate Authority to have passed an order for recovery of the amount as awarded. I cannot persuade myself to read the judgment of the Supreme Court in the manner as urged. The Supreme Court was seized of a case arising from proceedings in Chandigarh. The order was modified by - 3 - the Court keeping in view the prevailing circumstances. Learned counsel then placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, 2008 (10) SCC 1, to urge that by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, all judgments passed by the Supreme Court are binding upon the lower Courts and precedents of the larger Benches of the High Court are binding on the lower Courts as also on the coordinate Benches of the same Court. This proposition of law is well settled. Learned counsel has urged this principle on the submission that the learned Rent Controller has not followed the Full Bench decision of this Court directing that the arrears of rent should be calculated by the Rent Controller. His submission is that in this view of the matter, the order was illegal and as a consequence, no interim order could be passed. I am unable to persuade myself to accept this contention. In these proceedings, I am not required to go into the legality of the order of eviction which is pending final adjudication before the Appellate Authority. Surely, if the decision of the Rent Controller in the suit on ground of non payment of rent is contrary to the decision passed by the Full Bench of this Court, it would be the duty of the Appellate Authority to follow and apply the said judgment. The only challenge in this petition is to - 4 - the order passed by the Appellate Authority imposing quantum of use and occupation charges. The order shows that the learned Court has taken three weeks for determining these charges taking into account (i) the location of the property, (ii) its inclusion within the municipal limits of Shimla and (iii) that about more than 40/45 quarters exist which have been further sublet. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Appellate Authority has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or against the principles of law. A prayer is made by the learned counsel for early hearing of the appeal. It is not for this Court to fix the case calendar of the learned Appellate Authority. As and when such a prayer is made by the petitioners herein before the learned appellate authority, he shall consider it in accordance with law. This petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 19, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.