IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.303 of 2011 Date of decision : August 30, 2011 Lokesh Sood and another …Petitioners. Versus M/s Chint Ram & Sons and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners are landlords of certain commercial and residential property, which they had let out to the respondents. They filed petition, for eviction of the tenants, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. Rent Controller has allowed the petition, on the ground of rebuilding/reconstruction. Appeal has been filed by the respondents against the eviction order, before the Appellate Authority. Learned Appellate Authority has stayed the operation of the order, on payment of use and occupation charges, at the rate of `3,500/- per month, pending disposal of the appeal. Petitioners, before this Court, are aggrieved by the quantum of use and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… occupation charges, fixed by the learned Appellate Authority, in its impugned order. 3. Premises were let out to the respondents by the petitioners, on annual rent of `750/-. Learned Appellate Authority has ordered the respondents to pay use and occupation charges, at the rate of `3,500/- per month, or say 60 times the agreed amount of rent. 4. Learned counsel, representing the petitioners, submits that material had been placed on record, showing that market rent, in the area, is much higher than the use and occupation charges assessed by the Appellate Authority. According to him, the use and occupation charges, as per prevailing rate, are not less than `70,000/- per month. 5. As noticed, here in above, learned Appellate Authority has ordered the payment of use and occupation charges, at a rate 60 times more than the agreed rent. Premises were let out about 25-30 years back, as per learned counsel for the petitioners. Exact assessment of market rent cannot be made, while passing an interim order, staying the operation of eviction order, pending disposal of the appeal. Since the use and occupation charges, subject to payment of which operation of the impugned order has been stayed, are 60 times more than the agreed rent (which was agreed about 25-30 years …3… back), it cannot be said that the order of the learned Appellate Authority is unreasonable or illegal. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 6. It is, however, ordered that the Appellate Authority shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal at the earliest possible and in any case by 31st March, 2012. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 30, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J