1 2026:HHC:36005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 184 of 2024 Reserved on: 17.8.2026 Decided on : 25.8.2026 Uploaded on: 25.8.2026 Dev Raj Duggal (since deceased) through LRs … Petitioners Versus Harish Kumar …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Bhupinder Jit Kashyap, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge The present petition has been filed under Section 24(5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the petitioner, who has expired during the pendency of the lis, against the order dated 13.11.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla (exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 2 2026:HHC:36005 1987) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority’). 2. By way of order dated 13.11.2024, which has been passed in CMP No. 175 of 2024 in Case No. 46-S/6 of 2024, the use and occupation charges of the rented premises, were fixed @ Rs. 500/- per square feet, per month, in favour of the respondent, w.e.f. 8.12.2023. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts, leading to filing the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under: Petitioner/landlord Harish Kumar has filed petition under Section 14(3) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’), before the Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Controller’), against respondent Dev Raj Duggal (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners). The said rent petition was allowed by the learned Rent 3 2026:HHC:36005 Controller, vide order dated 8.12.2023, and the tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises, within a period of two months. 5. The said order has been assailed by the tenant, by filing appeal under Section 24 of the Rent Act, before the Appellate Authority. Alongwith the appeal, application under Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, for staying the further proceedings, in pursuance of order dated 8.12.2023, has been moved. 6. Petitioner Harish Kumar has moved an application under Section 151 CPC, directing the tenant to pay use and occupation charges at the market rate from 8.12.2023, i.e. from the date of the eviction order. 7. The said application has been moved, on the ground, that after eviction order, tenant is liable to pay use and occupation charges, at the market rate, from the date of eviction order, as relationship of land lord and tenant, has now come to an end. The use and occupation charges, at the market rate, have been claimed, on the basis of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme 4 2026:HHC:36005 Court, as well as, other judicial pronouncements, as mentioned in the application. 8. It has been pleaded in the application that the rent/use and occupation charges of similar accommodation in the said area, are not less than 100 per sq. feet. As such, he has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,86,500/-, as use and occupation charges, from the date of passing of the eviction order. 9. The said application has been contested by the tenant by filing reply by taking preliminary objections that the application is not maintainable; the applicant has suppressed the material facts; and the application has been filed with the ulterior motive, just to harass the non-applicant. 10. On merits, the amount, claimed as use and occupation charges, has been contested, on the ground, that market rate of the demised premises, is not more than Rs. 80/- to 100/- per sq. meters, per month. 11. The application has been considered and allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 13.11.2024 by fixing the use and occupation @ Rs. 5 2026:HHC:36005 500/- per square feet, from the date of eviction order, dated 8.12.2023, till the pendency of the appeal, before the appellate authority. 12. The said order has been assailed by the tenant, by way of present petition, on the ground, that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is based upon the assumptions and presumptions; and that the order on the application, should have been passed by the learned Appellate Authority, after determining the same, either by way of holding inquiry, or by affording an opportunity to the parties to place on record the material, in support of the claim/counter claim. 14. The impugned order has further been challenged, on the ground, that the learned Appellate Authority has also committed illegality, in not granting the time to place on record the material, which would have enabled the Authority to arrive at a just conclusion. 15. Admitting the liability of the tenant to pay use and occupation charges, the impugned order has been assailed, on the ground, that the tenant in the application has only reproduced the judgments of 6 2026:HHC:36005 Hon’ble Supreme Court, which only lay down the principle of law that the landlord is entitled to claim use and occupation charges, which fact was not being disputed by the tenant. 16. The impugned order has also been assailed, on the ground, that the Appellate Authority has passed the said order, on the basis of judgment so relied upon, whereas, the premises are situated in Lower Bazar area of Shimla and the judgments relied upon by the learned Appellate Authority were pertaining to the most viable commercial location of town i.e. the Mall and more particularly, being 30 ft. from Scandal Point area on the Mall. 17. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner has prayed that the order passed by the learned trial Court may kindly be set aside by dismissing the application, and in the alternative, it has been prayed that the appellate Authority may kindly be directed to determine the use and occupation 7 2026:HHC:36005 charges, either by holding inquiry itself or by getting the same conducted through the learned Rent Controller. 18. Per contra, Mr. Bhupinder Jit Kashyap, Advocate has prayed that the learned appellate Authority has rightly considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as, by this Court. As such, the impugned order does not require any interference, by this Court. 19. It is the trite law that the Court, while staying an order of eviction, must compensate the landlord by directing the person in possession, who becomes unauthorized, after the eviction order, to pay use and occupation charges. 20. In the present case, the learned Appellate Authority has decided the application for use and occupation charges, without holding any inquiry, and solely, on the basis of the case law, relied upon by the petitioner. 21. The learned Appellate Authority has also decided the said application, on the basis of judgments passed by this Court, in other matters, by holding that this 8 2026:HHC:36005 Court, has fixed the rate of use and occupation charges. However, the learned Appellate Authority has neither conducted and independent inquiry, nor directed the Rent Controller to conduct any inquiry, to decide the question of use and occupation charges. 22. If the approach of the learned Appellate Authority is seen, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case titled as, “M/s Bird Travels P.Ltd. Versus Amarjit Kaur & others”, reported in 2012 Law Finder (SC) 1249, then the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as before deciding the question of mesne profits, inquiry is required to be conducted, by giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Relevant paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment are reproduced, as under: “4. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents. The fixation of mesne profits would require evidence from both sides. We are, therefore, of the view that the dispute relating to the rate of mesne profits must be determined by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, after holding appropriate enquiry. 5. Civil Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the High Court dated December 19, 2011 is set aside. The Rent 9 2026:HHC:36005 Controller, Chandigarh shall now determine the mesne profits payable by the present appellant - M/s Bird Travels (P) Ltd. - to the respondents for the use and occupation of the demised premises from May 6, 2002 to February 11, 2012.” 23. In the present case, none of the parties has placed on record any document, demonstrating the potential value of the demised premises, before the learned Appellate Authority, nor before this Court, so that the question of use and occupation charges could be decided. 24. In view of above, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority and the matter is remanded back. The application, under Section 151 CPC, for use and occupation charges, is revived to the files of the learned Appellate Authority. 25 The learned Appellate Authority is directed to decide the said application, after affording an opportunity to produce the documents to the parties. The entire process be completed within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 10 2026:HHC:36005 26. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of, in aforesaid terms. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 27. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority, on 11.9.2026 at 10:00 a.m. (Virender Singh) 25.8.2026 Judge Kalpana