M/S. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. versus M/S. FEDERAL MOTORS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 10-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. 
v. 
MIS. FEDERAL MOTORS PVT. LTD. 
DECEMBER 10, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.) 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; Ss. 14(l)(b) and 38/Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 5 : 
A 
B 
Non-residental/commercial premises-Eviction petition-Eviction C 
ordered by Rent Controller-Stayed by Appellate Tribunal directing the 
tenant to deposit certain amount in excess of the contractual rent monthly-
Condition set aside by High Court-Correctness of-Held : Power of Rent 
Control Tribunal to grant stay is discretionary-Applicant must have shown 
sufficient cause before seeking grant of stay-By granting stay, Court/ D 
Tribunal postponing the execution of the order for eviction-Hence, could 
impose conditions including furnishing security for the due performance 
of the final decree/order to provide for compensation to Landlord. 
Termination of tenancy-Held: Termination of the proceedings before 
the Supervisory Forum/Appellate Court if results in affirming the decree/ E 
order of eviction, the tenancy would and terminated with effect from the 
date of the decree/order passed by the lower Forum/Court-Date of 
termination of tenancy could not be postponed-Doctrine of merger not 
attracted. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 111 : Determination of lease 
vis-a-vis tenancy-Discussed 
Words and Phrases : 
F 
'relevant facts '-Meaning of in the context of Rent Control Legislation. G 
Appellant-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respond-
ent-tenant on the ground of sub-letting. The suit was decreed by the 
Rent Controller. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal stayed the 
eviction subject to the condition that the respondent should deposit in H 
843 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A the Court as sum of Rs. 15,000 per month in excess of the contractual 
rent until the appeal was finally decided by the Court. The order was 
challenged by the respondent. Single Judge of the High Court set aside 
the condition. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Appellant contended that if an appeal/revision petition against a 
decree or order for eviction has been filed by the tenant retaining use 
and occupation of the premises, he should be prepared to compensate 
the landlord by paying such amount as the landlord would have been 
able to earn in the event of the premises being vacated; and that the 
superior Court, while passing an order of stay, acts well within its 
C discretionary jurisdiction by putting on terms the appellant who seeks 
an order of stay. 
Respondent submitted that during pendency of the app-eal the 
tenant-appellant cannot be directed to pay any amount over and above 
D the amount of contractual rent unless and until the decree or order of 
eviction has achieved finality since the tenant shall continue to remain 
a tenant and would not become a unlawful possession of the property. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: I.I. There is no specific provision in the Delhi Rent Control 
Act conferring power on the Tribunal to grant stay on the execution of 
the order of eviction passed by the Controller, but sub-:Section (3) of 
Section 38 of the Act confers the Tribunal with all the powers vested in a 
Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while hearing an appeal. 
F 
The provision empowers the Tribunal to pass an order of stay by reference 
to Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (849-B-CJ 
G 
1.2. It is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal does not 
operate as stay on the decree or order appealed against nor on the 
proceedings in the Court below. A prayer for the grant of stay of 
proceedings or on the execution of decree or order appealed against has 
to be specifically made to the appellate Court and the Court 
has discretion to grant an order of stay or to refuse the same. The only 
guiding factor, indicated in Rule 5 of Order 41 CPC is the existence of 
sufficient cause in favour of the appellant on the availability of which the 
H appellate Court would be inclined to pass an order of stay. [850-B-CJ 
-
.. 
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES v. FEDERAL MOTOR 
845 
1.3. Dispossession, during the pendency of an appeal of a party in A 
possession, is generally considered to be 'substantial loss' to the party 
applying for stay of execution within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-rule 
(3) of Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code. Clause (c) of the same provision 
mandates security for the due performance of the decree or order as may
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.