Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MADHU TIWARI versus SMT. SATYA BHAMA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Madhu Tiwari v. Smt. Satya Bhama And Others - WRIT - A No. 6308 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1889 (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 petitioner and perused the record.

Issue notices to the respondents returnable at an early date.

The case of the petitioner is that House No. 106/310 situated in Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur Nagar was allotted to her vide order dated 12.5.2004 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate, IIIrd, Kanpur Nagar.

The aforesaid allotment order was challenged by the respondent-landlords on the ground that the same was obtained by playing fraud.

Petitioner filed objection under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 alleging that she was in possesion of the allotted accommodation in pursuance of the valid order of allotment and she challenged the title of the landlords.

The review/restoration application dated 27.9.2004 filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 9.11.2005 but the revisional Court allowed Rent Revision No. 49 of 2005 vide order dated 18.1.2007.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner-tenants are paying Rs. 500/- per month as rent of the aforesaid house. The tenancy in dispute comprises three rooms , kitchen and latrine/ bath room.

Looking to the present rates of market rent of houses in the concerned locaoity, the rent being paid 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

as under: -

3 rooms @ Rs. 900/- per room = Rs. 2700/-

kitchen @ Rs. 150/-           = Rs.   150/-

latrine/bathroom @ Rs/150/-           = Rs.   150/-  

                                                                Total = Rs. 3000/-

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. 3000/-, per month as the rent of the house in dispute w.e.f. Februaryy, 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.