Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Supreme Court Orders Eviction and Payment of Use and Occupation Charges

On 10th September 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case of M/S Artistic Art Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. B. Sita Maha Lakshmi. The dispute revolved around a landlord-tenant conflict, specifically concerning eviction orders and the payment of use and occupation charges.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, requiring the tenant to vacate the premises while ensuring that the landlord received fair compensation until the eviction date. The judgment highlighted the balance between the rights of tenants and landlords while emphasizing compliance with eviction orders.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the landlord, B. Sita Maha Lakshmi, filed for eviction of M/S Artistic Art Forum Pvt. Ltd. from a commercial property. The matter was contested in the **High Court**, where the tenant initially secured a **stay on eviction**. However, this **stay was later vacated**, leading the tenant to approach the **Supreme Court**.

The key issues involved in the dispute were:

• Whether the **eviction order should be upheld**.
• The **payment of use and occupation charges** while the tenant remained in the premises.
• The legal **undertakings required from the tenant** regarding compliance with the eviction.

Petitioner’s Arguments (M/S Artistic Art Forum Pvt. Ltd.)

The petitioner, **M/S Artistic Art Forum Pvt. Ltd.**, raised the following arguments:

• The **High Court should not have vacated the stay on eviction**.
• The company required additional time to **arrange alternative commercial space**.
• The use and occupation charges demanded were **excessive and unreasonable**.

Respondent’s Arguments (B. Sita Maha Lakshmi)

The respondent, **B. Sita Maha Lakshmi**, countered these claims with the following arguments:

• The eviction order was **legally justified**, and the tenant had **prolonged the process** by securing a stay.
• The premises were required for **other business purposes**, and continued occupation by the tenant was unfair.
• Use and occupation charges must be **fairly compensated** to ensure that the landlord does not suffer financial loss.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising **Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul**, reviewed the facts and provided the following observations:

On Eviction Orders:

“The appellant is before this Court against the interim order passed by the High Court, whereby the stay on eviction was vacated.”

The Court acknowledged that the tenant required time to vacate but could not indefinitely delay eviction.

On Use and Occupation Charges:

“The appellant through its counsel undertakes to surrender vacant possession of the premises in question on or before 31.03.2019. The undertaking is recorded. The impugned order stands modified, as above. The appellant shall continue to pay the use and occupation charges at Rs.1.50 Lacs per month.”

The Court ensured that while the tenant was granted time to vacate, they were required to fairly compensate the landlord for continued use of the premises.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The tenant must **vacate the premises by 31st March 2019**.
• The tenant must pay **Rs.1.50 Lacs per month as use and occupation charges** until eviction.
• This arrangement was **without prejudice to future claims for mesne profits**, meaning that further financial claims could be pursued.
• The tenant must submit a **formal undertaking** within two weeks, ensuring compliance.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for **landlord-tenant disputes** in India:

• Strict enforcement of eviction orders: Tenants cannot indefinitely prolong eviction through stays.
• Fair compensation for landlords: Use and occupation charges ensure that landlords are not financially harmed.
• Legal obligations of tenants: Tenants must comply with legal undertakings when granted additional time to vacate.

The ruling upholds the rights of property owners while ensuring fair treatment for tenants, reinforcing legal clarity in rental disputes.

Petitioner Name: M/S Artistic Art Forum Pvt. Ltd..
Respondent Name: B. Sita Maha Lakshmi.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 10-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: MS Artistic Art For vs B. Sita Maha Lakshmi Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category