Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ved Bhushan And Others v. A.D.J. Court No. 2 Ghaziabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 62292 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 1128 (17 January 2007)


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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the instant case, the Prescribed Authority released House No. 289, ahata Brindavan Bazaria, ghaziabad vide order dated 30.4.2004 against which, the petitioners filed Rent Appeal No. 40 of 2004 and also moved application for leading additional evidence, which had been rejected by the appellate Court vide order dated 21.9.2005.

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.9.2005, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ No. 67538 of 2003 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 25.10.2005 setting aside the order dated 21.9.2005 with the direction to the appeallate Court to take the additional evidence.

Ultimately, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.7.2006 in pursuance whereof execution proceedings have started.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgments, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are 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-landlord submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid impugned orders of the Courts below and that the petitioner is in possession of 8 rooms with kitchen, bathroom etc.

 The accommodation in dispute in the possession of the petitioner-tenant is situated in Ahata Brindavan Bazaria Ghaziabad  and there is specific concurrent finding of the Courts below that the petitioners are living in Delhi and with mala fide intention, they have occupied the tenanted accommodation on the ground that children are studying at Ghaziabad . The rent of Rs.2500/-/- per month in respect of the aforesaid accommodation in question is too meagre as while enhancing the rent to Rs.2500/- per month, Courts below have held that even this rent is too meagre as the property in dispute is situated in posh locality and can fetch not less than Rs.15,000/- as rent as with the passage of time the value of  rent of the accommodations in Ghaziabad has increased many-fold and as such it may 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 them on rent, per contra their case is that no shop is available on the rent, which they are paying at present to the landlord.

     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."

Sri Veer Singh, counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to file an affidavit within 10 days from today showing clearly the accommodation under his tenancy with complete area of each room etc.  Counsel for the responedents will also file an affidavit annexing therewith the sanctioned map of the house in dispute.

Having a pragmatic approach and taking into consideration the area, location, nature of construction, current market rate of rent, locality etc. it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation be enhanced  subject to further orders after exchange of Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits as under :-

For 8 rooms @ Rs.1100/- per room..    ... Rs.8800.00

Kitchen                                                               ... Rs. 500.00

Latrine/bathroom                                                ... Rs.500.00

Open area                                                           ...  Rs. 200.00

Total    .... Rs. 10,000


It is accordingly directed that the tenants shall pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- per month towards rent to the landlord till further orders with 10% increase in rent every 5 years. The rent of January 2007 shall be payable to the landlord by 7th of February, 2007 and thereafter 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 landlord will have the liberty to get the disputed shop 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 after 10 days.

Dated 17.1.2007/kkb


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


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 |

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