Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER versus D.J.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. And Another v. D.J. - WRIT - A No. 5949 of 1994 [2006] RD-AH 20868 (11 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  5949   of  1994

State of U.P.and  another

Versus

District Judge Moradabad and others

Hon.Sanjay Misra.J.

The instant  writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. and another challenging the judgment and order dated 6.10.1993 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 31 of 1993 (State of U.P and another Vs. Sardar Mohan Singh)   by the Court of District Judge Moradabad.  

The facts giving rise to the present case is that the first floor of House No. 30 situate at Jawahar Nagar, Moradabad was let out by the landlord respondent no.3 to the petitioners on a monthly rent of  Rs. 700   w.e.f. 1.8.1977. The parties executed an agreement and the last of such agreements was executed on 28.8.1986. Since the petitoner was protected from eviction by virtue of the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972 therefore, as provided in Section 21 (8), the respondent no. 3 moved an application  dated 15.9.1987 for enhancement of monthly rent, a true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to  this writ petition.  It has been stated in the said application that the petitioners are tenants of the first floor of the building and inspite of notice given to them, they have refused to enhance the rent, consequently the respondent no. 3 has  claimed enhancement of rent to Rs. 2000 per month w.e.f. 1.6.1987 since  the market value of the tenanted portion is claimed  to be Rs. 2,45,000/-. The application of the landlord was  contested by the State.  However, the Rent control & Eviction Officer Moradabad by his judgment and order dated 20.5.1993 determined the market value of the tenanted portion at Rs. 2,23,328/- and enhanced the monthly rent to Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987. The appeal filed by the petitoner was also dismissed by the impugned order.

Heard Sri Ashok Shukla, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record.

The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is an agreement between the parties with respect to fixation of the rent  then the application of the landlord for enhancement of rent was not maintainable. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived in as much as there can be no estoppel against the statute  and since admittedly the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972  are applicable in the present case, the relationship between the parties is to be governed by the provisions of the said Act and not by the terms of a private contract particularly when the petitioner is given protection from eviction by virtue of clause (8) of Section 21 and its proviso entitles the landlord to seek enhancement of Rent.

The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that valuation of the tenanted portion as arrived at by the courts below is incorrect and the report submitted by the petitoner and its valuer has not been considered. A perusal of the   record indicates that there were two valuation reports submitted before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer . One report  was submitted by the petitioners filed as  Annexure 3 to the writ petition  wherein the  valuer had shown valuation of the tenanted portion to be Rs. 60,000/- . The other valuation report  was submitted by the respondent landlord  showing the  value of the tenanted  portion as Rs. 2,45,200/-.  In this second report  the proportionate value of the land was also taken into consideration. The courts below upon considering both the reports have recorded a concurrent finding of fact approving the valuation report filed on behalf of the respondent landlord. The said market value has been assessed on relevant material and the said findings are not arbitrary or perverse  Learned counsel for the petitoner has not  been able to show to this Court that the said finding of fact recorded by both the  courts below is in any way erroneous or illegal.

Learned counsel for the petitoner has further contended that even if  the valuation report  submitted by  the respondent no.3  was to be accepted then the value of the land  determined at Rs. 400 per metre was liable to be excluded while   fixing the valuation of the first floor tenanted portion in as much as the persons living in the ground floor had the enjoyment of the land and not the petitioners who were  tenants of the first floor.  The Courts below while dealing with the aforesaid question have held that the valuer has taken into consideration the valuation of the land at a proportionate rate and has found that the vacant plot would be valued at Rs. 1200 per sq. metre and therefore, the proportionate value  of the land for the first floor  tenanted portion would be Rs. 400 per sq. metre.  While deciding this question, the courts below have placed reliance upon a decision pronounced in the case of State of U.P.and others Vs. VIIth Addl. District Judge reported in 1992 (1) ARC Page 265 wherein it has been held that the value of the entire area of land has  under tenancy to be determined first  and thereafter the value of the building let out in the shape of super structure.  

For the reasons  stated  above, I do not find any error in the judgment of the courts below therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

On the basis of instructions received by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners have  vacated the building in its tenancy and have paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 700 per month upto 10.11.1993. He further submits that the petitioners have not paid the enhanced rent w.e.f. 1.10.1987 till date the premises was vacated. In view of aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is found  that the petitioners are liable to pay to the respondent no.3 enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987 upto the date the premises was vacated by the petitioners. The said payment will be made by the petitioners to the respondent no.3 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the petitioners. The petitioners will also be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the said amount till the date it is actually paid.  The amount of rent already paid by the petitioners will be adjusted while calculating the amount on the basis of enhanced rent.

No order is passed as to costs.

Dt.    11th  August 2006

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  5949   of  1994

State of U.P.and  another

Versus

District Judge Moradabad and others

Hon.Sanjay Misra.J.

The instant  writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. and another challenging the judgment and order dated 6.10.1993 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 31 of 1993 (State of U.P and another Vs. Sardar Mohan Singh)   by the Court of District Judge Moradabad.  

The facts giving rise to the present case is that the first floor of House No. 30 situate at Jawahar Nagar, Moradabad was let out by the landlord respondent no.3 to the petitioners on a monthly rent of  Rs. 700   w.e.f. 1.8.1977. The parties executed an agreement and the last of such agreements was executed on 28.8.1986. Since the petitoner was protected from eviction by virtue of the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972 therefore, as provided in Section 21 (8), the respondent no. 3 moved an application  dated 15.9.1987 for enhancement of monthly rent, a true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to  this writ petition.  It has been stated in the said application that the petitioners are tenants of the first floor of the building and inspite of notice given to them, they have refused to enhance the rent, consequently the respondent no. 3 has  claimed enhancement of rent to Rs. 2000 per month w.e.f. 1.6.1987 since  the market value of the tenanted portion is claimed  to be Rs. 2,45,000/-. The application of the landlord was  contested by the State.  However, the Rent control & Eviction Officer Moradabad by his judgment and order dated 20.5.1993 determined the market value of the tenanted portion at Rs. 2,23,328/- and enhanced the monthly rent to Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987. The appeal filed by the petitoner was also dismissed by the impugned order.

Heard Sri Ashok Shukla, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record.

The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is an agreement between the parties with respect to fixation of the rent  then the application of the landlord for enhancement of rent was not maintainable. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived in as much as there can be no estoppel against the statute  and since admittedly the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972  are applicable in the present case, the relationship between the parties is to be governed by the provisions of the said Act and not by the terms of a private contract particularly when the petitioner is given protection from eviction by virtue of clause (8) of Section 21 and its proviso entitles the landlord to seek enhancement of Rent.

The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that valuation of the tenanted portion as arrived at by the courts below is incorrect and the report submitted by the petitoner and its valuer has not been considered. A perusal of the   record indicates that there were two valuation reports submitted before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer . One report  was submitted by the petitioners filed as  Annexure 3 to the writ petition  wherein the  valuer had shown valuation of the tenanted portion to be Rs. 60,000/- . The other valuation report  was submitted by the respondent landlord  showing the  value of the tenanted  portion as Rs. 2,45,200/-.  In this second report  the proportionate value of the land was also taken into consideration. The courts below upon considering both the reports have recorded a concurrent finding of fact approving the valuation report filed on behalf of the respondent landlord. The said market value has been assessed on relevant material and the said findings are not arbitrary or perverse  Learned counsel for the petitoner has not  been able to show to this Court that the said finding of fact recorded by both the  courts below is in any way erroneous or illegal.

Learned counsel for the petitoner has further contended that even if  the valuation report  submitted by  the respondent no.3  was to be accepted then the value of the land  determined at Rs. 400 per metre was liable to be excluded while   fixing the valuation of the first floor tenanted portion in as much as the persons living in the ground floor had the enjoyment of the land and not the petitioners who were  tenants of the first floor.  The Courts below while dealing with the aforesaid question have held that the valuer has taken into consideration the valuation of the land at a proportionate rate and has found that the vacant plot would be valued at Rs. 1200 per sq. metre and therefore, the proportionate value  of the land for the first floor  tenanted portion would be Rs. 400 per sq. metre.  While deciding this question, the courts below have placed reliance upon a decision pronounced in the case of State of U.P.and others Vs. VIIth Addl. District Judge reported in 1992 (1) ARC Page 265 wherein it has been held that the value of the entire area of land has  under tenancy to be determined first  and thereafter the value of the building let out in the shape of super structure.  

For the reasons  stated  above, I do not find any error in the judgment of the courts below therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

On the basis of instructions received by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners have  vacated the building in its tenancy and have paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 700 per month upto 10.11.1993. He further submits that the petitioners have not paid the enhanced rent w.e.f. 1.10.1987 till date the premises was vacated. In view of aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is found  that the petitioners are liable to pay to the respondent no.3 enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987 upto the date the premises was vacated by the petitioners. The said payment will be made by the petitioners to the respondent no.3 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the petitioners. The petitioners will also be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the said amount till the date it is actually paid.  The amount of rent already paid by the petitioners will be adjusted while calculating the amount on the basis of enhanced rent.

No order is passed as to costs.

Dt.    11th  August 2006

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  5949   of  1994

State of U.P.and  another

Versus

District Judge Moradabad and others

Hon.Sanjay Misra.J.

The instant  writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. and another challenging the judgment and order dated 6.10.1993 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 31 of 1993 (State of U.P and another Vs. Sardar Mohan Singh)   by the Court of District Judge Moradabad.  

The facts giving rise to the present case is that the first floor of House No. 30 situate at Jawahar Nagar, Moradabad was let out by the landlord respondent no.3 to the petitioners on a monthly rent of  Rs. 700   w.e.f. 1.8.1977. The parties executed an agreement and the last of such agreements was executed on 28.8.1986. Since the petitoner was protected from eviction by virtue of the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972 therefore, as provided in Section 21 (8), the respondent no. 3 moved an application  dated 15.9.1987 for enhancement of monthly rent, a true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to  this writ petition.  It has been stated in the said application that the petitioners are tenants of the first floor of the building and inspite of notice given to them, they have refused to enhance the rent, consequently the respondent no. 3 has  claimed enhancement of rent to Rs. 2000 per month w.e.f. 1.6.1987 since  the market value of the tenanted portion is claimed  to be Rs. 2,45,000/-. The application of the landlord was  contested by the State.  However, the Rent control & Eviction Officer Moradabad by his judgment and order dated 20.5.1993 determined the market value of the tenanted portion at Rs. 2,23,328/- and enhanced the monthly rent to Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987. The appeal filed by the petitoner was also dismissed by the impugned order.

Heard Sri Ashok Shukla, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record.

The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is an agreement between the parties with respect to fixation of the rent  then the application of the landlord for enhancement of rent was not maintainable. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived in as much as there can be no estoppel against the statute  and since admittedly the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972  are applicable in the present case, the relationship between the parties is to be governed by the provisions of the said Act and not by the terms of a private contract particularly when the petitioner is given protection from eviction by virtue of clause (8) of Section 21 and its proviso entitles the landlord to seek enhancement of Rent.

The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that valuation of the tenanted portion as arrived at by the courts below is incorrect and the report submitted by the petitoner and its valuer has not been considered. A perusal of the   record indicates that there were two valuation reports submitted before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer . One report  was submitted by the petitioners filed as  Annexure 3 to the writ petition  wherein the  valuer had shown valuation of the tenanted portion to be Rs. 60,000/- . The other valuation report  was submitted by the respondent landlord  showing the  value of the tenanted  portion as Rs. 2,45,200/-.  In this second report  the proportionate value of the land was also taken into consideration. The courts below upon considering both the reports have recorded a concurrent finding of fact approving the valuation report filed on behalf of the respondent landlord. The said market value has been assessed on relevant material and the said findings are not arbitrary or perverse  Learned counsel for the petitoner has not  been able to show to this Court that the said finding of fact recorded by both the  courts below is in any way erroneous or illegal.

Learned counsel for the petitoner has further contended that even if  the valuation report  submitted by  the respondent no.3  was to be accepted then the value of the land  determined at Rs. 400 per metre was liable to be excluded while   fixing the valuation of the first floor tenanted portion in as much as the persons living in the ground floor had the enjoyment of the land and not the petitioners who were  tenants of the first floor.  The Courts below while dealing with the aforesaid question have held that the valuer has taken into consideration the valuation of the land at a proportionate rate and has found that the vacant plot would be valued at Rs. 1200 per sq. metre and therefore, the proportionate value  of the land for the first floor  tenanted portion would be Rs. 400 per sq. metre.  While deciding this question, the courts below have placed reliance upon a decision pronounced in the case of State of U.P.and others Vs. VIIth Addl. District Judge reported in 1992 (1) ARC Page 265 wherein it has been held that the value of the entire area of land has  under tenancy to be determined first  and thereafter the value of the building let out in the shape of super structure.  

For the reasons  stated  above, I do not find any error in the judgment of the courts below therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

On the basis of instructions received by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners have  vacated the building in its tenancy and have paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 700 per month upto 10.11.1993. He further submits that the petitioners have not paid the enhanced rent w.e.f. 1.10.1987 till date the premises was vacated. In view of aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is found  that the petitioners are liable to pay to the respondent no.3 enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987 upto the date the premises was vacated by the petitioners. The said payment will be made by the petitioners to the respondent no.3 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the petitioners. The petitioners will also be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the said amount till the date it is actually paid.  The amount of rent already paid by the petitioners will be adjusted while calculating the amount on the basis of enhanced rent.

No order is passed as to costs.

Dt.    11th  August 2006

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  5949   of  1994

State of U.P.and  another

Versus

District Judge Moradabad and others

Hon.Sanjay Misra.J.

The instant  writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. and another challenging the judgment and order dated 6.10.1993 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 31 of 1993 (State of U.P and another Vs. Sardar Mohan Singh)   by the Court of District Judge Moradabad.  

The facts giving rise to the present case is that the first floor of House No. 30 situate at Jawahar Nagar, Moradabad was let out by the landlord respondent no.3 to the petitioners on a monthly rent of  Rs. 700   w.e.f. 1.8.1977. The parties executed an agreement and the last of such agreements was executed on 28.8.1986. Since the petitoner was protected from eviction by virtue of the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972 therefore, as provided in Section 21 (8), the respondent no. 3 moved an application  dated 15.9.1987 for enhancement of monthly rent, a true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to  this writ petition.  It has been stated in the said application that the petitioners are tenants of the first floor of the building and inspite of notice given to them, they have refused to enhance the rent, consequently the respondent no. 3 has  claimed enhancement of rent to Rs. 2000 per month w.e.f. 1.6.1987 since  the market value of the tenanted portion is claimed  to be Rs. 2,45,000/-. The application of the landlord was  contested by the State.  However, the Rent control & Eviction Officer Moradabad by his judgment and order dated 20.5.1993 determined the market value of the tenanted portion at Rs. 2,23,328/- and enhanced the monthly rent to Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987. The appeal filed by the petitoner was also dismissed by the impugned order.

Heard Sri Ashok Shukla, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record.

The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is an agreement between the parties with respect to fixation of the rent  then the application of the landlord for enhancement of rent was not maintainable. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived in as much as there can be no estoppel against the statute  and since admittedly the provisions of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972  are applicable in the present case, the relationship between the parties is to be governed by the provisions of the said Act and not by the terms of a private contract particularly when the petitioner is given protection from eviction by virtue of clause (8) of Section 21 and its proviso entitles the landlord to seek enhancement of Rent.

The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that valuation of the tenanted portion as arrived at by the courts below is incorrect and the report submitted by the petitoner and its valuer has not been considered. A perusal of the   record indicates that there were two valuation reports submitted before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer . One report  was submitted by the petitioners filed as  Annexure 3 to the writ petition  wherein the  valuer had shown valuation of the tenanted portion to be Rs. 60,000/- . The other valuation report  was submitted by the respondent landlord  showing the  value of the tenanted  portion as Rs. 2,45,200/-.  In this second report  the proportionate value of the land was also taken into consideration. The courts below upon considering both the reports have recorded a concurrent finding of fact approving the valuation report filed on behalf of the respondent landlord. The said market value has been assessed on relevant material and the said findings are not arbitrary or perverse  Learned counsel for the petitoner has not  been able to show to this Court that the said finding of fact recorded by both the  courts below is in any way erroneous or illegal.

Learned counsel for the petitoner has further contended that even if  the valuation report  submitted by  the respondent no.3  was to be accepted then the value of the land  determined at Rs. 400 per metre was liable to be excluded while   fixing the valuation of the first floor tenanted portion in as much as the persons living in the ground floor had the enjoyment of the land and not the petitioners who were  tenants of the first floor.  The Courts below while dealing with the aforesaid question have held that the valuer has taken into consideration the valuation of the land at a proportionate rate and has found that the vacant plot would be valued at Rs. 1200 per sq. metre and therefore, the proportionate value  of the land for the first floor  tenanted portion would be Rs. 400 per sq. metre.  While deciding this question, the courts below have placed reliance upon a decision pronounced in the case of State of U.P.and others Vs. VIIth Addl. District Judge reported in 1992 (1) ARC Page 265 wherein it has been held that the value of the entire area of land has  under tenancy to be determined first  and thereafter the value of the building let out in the shape of super structure.  

For the reasons  stated  above, I do not find any error in the judgment of the courts below therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

On the basis of instructions received by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners have  vacated the building in its tenancy and have paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 700 per month upto 10.11.1993. He further submits that the petitioners have not paid the enhanced rent w.e.f. 1.10.1987 till date the premises was vacated. In view of aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is found  that the petitioners are liable to pay to the respondent no.3 enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1800 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1987 upto the date the premises was vacated by the petitioners. The said payment will be made by the petitioners to the respondent no.3 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the petitioners. The petitioners will also be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the said amount till the date it is actually paid.  The amount of rent already paid by the petitioners will be adjusted while calculating the amount on the basis of enhanced rent.

No order is passed as to costs.

Dt.    11th  August 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.