Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. WAZIR JAHAN BEGUM versus D.J. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Wazir Jahan Begum v. D.J. & Another - WRIT - A No. 4912 of 1992 [2006] RD-AH 3274 (13 February 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

(Court No. 51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4912 of 1992

Smt. Wazir Jahan Begum Versus District Judge, Fatehpur and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

This is landlady's writ petition arising out of SCC Suit No. 8 of 1988 filed by original landlady Smt Wazir Jahan Begum since deceased and survived by legal representatives against tenant respondent No. 2 Dr. Neel Kanth Sarkar. Eviction was sought on the ground of material alteration and damage to the building as provided under section 20(2) (b) and (c) of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972. The allegation was that the tenant in the Verandah which was a part of the tenanted accommodation had constructed a wall and fixed a door thereby converting the verandah into two rooms which diminished the value of verandah and open chabutra and disfigured the building. It was also alleged that tenant had fixed pipe in the room without the permission of the landlady.

Trial Court/ JSCC /Munsif Fatehpur decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 8.12.1988. Against the said judgment and decree SCC Revision No. 139 of 1988 was filed by the tenant. Revisional Court allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 29.11.1991 and dismissed the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

Revisional court held that raising a wall in verandah and fixing the pipe in the room did not diminish the value and utility of the building. In my opinion the view of the revisional court is perfectly in accordance with the law. In this regard following authorities of the Supreme Court may be referred: -

1. Waryam Singh Vs. B.Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 59

2. G.Raghunathan Vs. K.V.Varghese, 2005 AIRSCW 4086

3. Hari Rao Vs. N.Govindachari, AIR 2005 SC 3389

Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.

I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 64 and H.M.Kichlu Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.

Building in dispute contains one room, a verandah and a shop. Rent of Rs.32/- per month is virtually as well as actually no rent.

Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from March 2006 onwards, tenant respondent shall pay rent to the landlords petitioners at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month inclusive of all taxes. No further amount shall be payable by the tenant.

Waqar/

13.2.2006


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.