IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.393 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Smt.Manjula Sharma wife of Shri Om Parkash Sharma, Resident of 2-Daleview, Lower Bazar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. … …Petitioner Versus Kedar Nath son of Shri Dina Nath, since deceased, through his LRs Shri Summernath s/o Sh.Surinder Nath, Resident of Ellerslie, Shimla, HP. … …Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein, Smt.Manjula Sharma, challenging the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority-(II), Shimla, H.P. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority-(II), Shimla, instituted under Section 21(3) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 praying for staying the operation of the judgment dated 20.3.2020 (sic 20.3.2010) passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No.20-2 of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes 2 2004, titled: Kedar Nath vs. Smt.Manjula Sharma, vide which appellant-petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises on the grounds of non- payment of arrears of rent and subletting etc. This application was opposed by the respondent-landlord on a number of grounds. It was urged before the learned trial Court by the landlord that the petitioner herein was enjoying the premises on a nominal rent of Rs.25/- per annum, whereas the market rent of the premises was much higher than the contractual rate. Valuation report dated 1.7.2010 was filed in the Court below assessing the monthly rent as Rs.12,694.72 paise. The learned Rent Controller held that after the eviction order has been passed, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises and in these circumstances, the landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent. The Court also held that such charges should not be unreasonable. 3. Learned Appellate Authority holds that the premises in question are situated in Lower Bazar, Shimla, which is the hub of commercial activity and in these circumstances the petitioner be asked to deposit Rs.2000/- per month. The eviction order was stayed subject to the appellant-petitioner herein depositing a sum of Rs.2000/- per annum as use and occupation charges till the decision of the appeal, such charges to be deposited in the trial Court. It was further 3 directed that the respondent-landlord shall not be entitled to withdraw these use and occupation charges from the Court and will be entitled to withdraw the same only if the appeal of the tenant fails and the landlord succeeds. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. It is undisputed that after an order of eviction is passed, it is not open to a person to occupy the premises gratis. It is also not in dispute that such charges should and ought to be reasonable and that the contractual rate does not determine use and occupation charges for the reasons that the relationship between landlord and tenant comes to an end. 6. In these circumstances, since the appeal is pending, I direct that the petitioner herein will not be liable to deposit the use and occupation charges as determined by the learned Appellate Authority and that in case the appeal is decided against the appellant- petitioner, then in that event such charges as directed shall be deposited before the trial Court. If the appeal is decided in favour of the landlord, then in that event, such charges shall be determined afresh in proceedings which shall be instituted collaterally either in revisional/appellate proceedings or independently. Petition disposed of. 4 All interim orders stand vacated. All miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. November 23, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.