FAO No.219/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.219/2008 Date of Decision: May 14, 2010 SIDVI ENTERPRISES P.LTD ..... Appellant through Mr. D.D.Singh, Advocate versus NARENDER KUMAR WIDHANI ..... Respondent through Ms. Ekta Kalra Sikri, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional District Judge, Shri Daya Prakash dated April 24, 2008 allowing the application of the respondent herein filed under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby directing the appellant to pay the admitted rent @ Rs.24,360/- up-to-date from April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007. It is not disputed by the appellant that it was in possession of the suit premises from April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.24,360/- per month with effect from April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007 has not been paid by the appellant to the respondent towards use and occupation of the premises. FAO No.219/2008 Page 2 of 3 It is submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay charges for the use and occupation for the period as noticed above, notwithstanding the fact that it had been using the premises, the reason being that the respondent had not paid the arrears of electricity for the period prior to the tenancy of the appellant resulting in disconnection of the electricity in the premises. It is further submitted that because of the disconnection, the appellant had to take a generator on which he incurred expenses and, therefore, it is urged that before the appellant is directed to pay charges towards use and occupation for the period indicated above, it should be allowed to adjust the expenses incurred by it towards electricity and the security amount which is lying with the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant has filed a suit for damages as well as for refund of security deposit which is pending trial in the Court of Shri A.K.Chawla, Additional District Judge and that the appellant can claim the said amount only if the said suit gets decided in its favour. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I find that in so far as the impugned order dated April 24, 2008 is concerned, the trial Court thereby has only directed the appellant to pay the admitted use and occupation charges for the period April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007. In so far as the question of the appellant having incurred damages and the liability of the respondent to refund the security amount are concerned, the appellant itself has filed a separate suit claiming that amount and, therefore, it cannot claim adjustment of that amount towards the use and occupation of the FAO No.219/2008 Page 3 of 3 premises. As and when and in case the suit filed by the appellant gets decided in its favour, only then shall it become entitled to the amount. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appellant is directed to pay the use and occupation charges @ Rs.24,360/- from April 01, 2007 till November 05, 2007. With this direction, the appeal is dismissed. REKHA SHARMA, J. MAY 14, 2010 PC/ka