Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. HAJRA BEGUM versus MANSOOR ALI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Hajra Begum v. Mansoor Ali And Others - WRIT - A No. 43707 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 1888 (6 February 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly the petitioner is tenant of one room accommodation in premises no. 88/373-A(old no.) 88/390 (new no.) situated in Humayunbagh, Kanpur Nagar.  Respondent no. 1 is the landlord.

The respondent-landlord filed release application, registered as P.A Case no. 20 of 2000, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 seeking release of the tenanted accommodation on the ground of bona fide need.  

The release application was contested by the tenant-petitioner by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations, inter alia, that after death of her husband her three sons and one unmarried daughter are co-tenants and doing the business, as such, suit is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and that the landlord was not accepting rent offerred by the tenant.

After hearing the parties and considering evidence available on record, the trial Court  allowed the release application vide judgment dated 7.5.2002.  Rent Control Appeal No. 39 of 2002 under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 preferred by the tenant also met the same fate vide judgment dated 4.8.2003.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner-tenant is paying Rs. 75/- per mont as rent of the aforesaid accommodation.

The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that looking to the present rates of market rent of houses/shops the rent being paid to him is too meager for the aforesaid accommodation in a city like Kanpur Nagar under the tenancy of the petitioner even for payments of taxes and maintenance of the building, as such the rent has to be proportionately increased during the pendency of the writ petition in order to balance equity.

Since, the only question for consideration at the moment is enhancement of rent, without going into the merit of the case, suffice it to say that in Rajeshwari  (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Prema Agarwal and others- 2005 (1) ARC-526, Khurshida Vs. A.D. J Muzaffarnagar- 2004(2) ARC-64, the rent was increased to about fifty times, 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."

The counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down, the Court may pass any appropriate order.

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

to Rs.1100/- per month.

Apart from the rent the tenant shall pay the water tax, house tax, electricity bills and all other legal dues/taxes payable by her.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the petitioner-tenants shall pay Rs.1100/-, per month as the rent of the house in dispute w.e.f. February, 2007 payable to the respondent-landlord by 17th March 2007 and thereafter by 7th day of each succeeding month till further orders with 10% notional increase after every 5 years in accordance with the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972.

                List this case in July, 2007 to inform the Court about compliance of this order by the learned counsel for the parties.

Dated 6.2.2007

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.