Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JASWANT AND OTHERS versus ADDL. DIST JUDGE (COURT NO. 5) AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaswant And Others v. Addl. Dist Judge (Court No. 5) And Others - WRIT - A No. 60154 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 21387 (19 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent- landlords filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act no. XIII of 1972') for release of the disputed accommodation in the possession of the petitioner-tenants on the ground of his own need.

The petitioners contested the matter and filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations.  

The release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 30.8.1996. The respondent-landlords preferred Rent Control Appeal which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9.5.2005 by the respondent no.1.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

From the record it is apparent that the accommodation, in dispute possessed by the petitioners is situate in M.G. Marg at the rate of rent of Rs.1000/- per month.  

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the Court below is unjust, improper and illegal.  He further submits that in case the petitioners are evicted from the disputed accommodation they will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

         The learned counsel for the respondent-landlords submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid impugned order of the Court below.

 The accommodation in dispute in the possession of the petitioner-tenants is admittedly situated in the posh locality of Agra.  The rent of Rs.1000/- per month in respect of the aforesaid accommodation in question is too meagre. With the passage of time the value of  rent of the accommodation, in dispute, has increased many-fold and as such it has to be proportionately increased in addition to notional increase of 10% in rent every 5 years.

   It is not the case of the tenants that no accommodation is available to him on rent, per contra his case is that no accommodation is available on the rent, which he is paying at present to the landlords.

     In view of the decisions rendered in Rajeshwari  (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Prema Agarwal and others- 2005 (1) ARC-526, Khurshida Vs. A.D. J Muzaffarnagar- 2004(2) ARC-64 wherein the rent was increased to about fifty times, the High Court held that it can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent as has also been held by this Court in paragraph 7 of the decision rendered in Smt. Zohra V. IVth Additional District Judge Jhansi - 2006(63) A.L.R.-643 and Hari Mohan Kichlu V. VIIIth A.D.J. Muzaffarnagar and others-2004 (2) ARC-652 wherein the rent was increased to more than 28 times the High Court held that while granting relief to a tenant against eviction, the writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.

In S.L.P. No. 19685 of 2006 arising out of Civil Misc. Writ No. 8972 of 2002- Hari Shankar Bhardwaj V. Dharamendra Kumar Gupta, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of this Court that the rent of the houses/buildings/shops may be fixed under Article 226 of the Constitution having a pragmatic approach and taking into consideration the area, location, nature of construction, current market rate of rent, locality etc. In the aforesaid case, rent had been fixed by the Court under Article 226 to Rs. 6500/- per month in the same manner as it is being fixed in the instant case.  The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.12.2006 passed in the aforesaid S.L.P No. 19685 of 2006 runs as under :-

" Heard learned counsel for the parties.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, time granted by the impugned order making the deposit is extended to 7th January, 2007."

     Having pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and location/area of the accommodation, in dispute, nature of construction etc. the rent is assassed as under :-

One drawing room = Rs.1000

One hall = Rs.1200

2 rooms @ Rs.1000/- per room = Rs. 2000

Kitchen =Rs.500 Latrine/bathrooms = Rs. 500

Court

Total = Rs.5,200

               

It would, therefore, be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation now be enhanced to Rs. 5,200/- per month (Rupees Five Thousand and Two Hundred) from December, 2006 to be paid on or before 7th January, 2007.  It is accordingly directed that the tenants shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,200/- per month towards rent to the landlords till further orders with 10% increase in rent every 5 years which shall be payable to the landlord by 7th day of each succeeding month.  In case of default in payment of the current rent consecutively for two months, as directed by this Court the landlords will have the liberty to get the disputed accommodation vacated by coercive process, with the help of police, in accordance with law within a period of one month by giving notice in writing.

List this case in the month of July, 2007.  

Dated 19.12.2007

Kkb


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.