High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Nujhat Parveen And Others v. Govind Shankar Khanna And Others - WRIT - A No. 6695 of 2007  RD-AH 1998 (7 February 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Apart from normal mode of service, the petitioners will also personally serve the respondents, steps for which shall be taken within a week from today. The service will be effected within two weeks thereafter and affidavit of service shall be filed by the next date of listing.
The notices shall indicate that the respondents may file Counter Affidavit by 28.3.2007.
List this case on 28.3.2007.
Admittedly the petitioner is tenant of the shop in dispute. The respondent-landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 seeking release of the shoop in dispute 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 she along with her children is carrying on business from the shop in dispute and that the need of the landlord is not genuine and bona fide.
After hearing the parties and considering evidence available on record, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide judgment dated 8.3.2006.
The case of the petitioners is that they wanted to challenged the aforesaid order by filing appeal but on the assurance of Sri Zameeruddin that he will challenge the said order on their behalf, they did not file the same. However, Sri Zameeruddin- respondent no. 8 challenged the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority on his behalf and illegally made the petitioners as defendants obviously for extraneous considerations. When petitioners came to know about this fact, they moved application before the Court below to treat them as appellants but the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.1.2007.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.
Llooking to the present rates of market rent of houses/shops the rent being paid to the landlords is too meager for the aforesaid commercial shop in a city like Moradabad under the tenancy of the petitioners 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
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 shop be enhanced to Rs.1500/- per month.
Apart from the rent the tenants shall pay the water tax, house tax, electricity bills and all other legal dues/taxes payable by them.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the petitioner-tenants shall pay Rs.1500/-, per month as the rent of the shop in dispute w.e.f. February, 2007 payable to the respondent-landlord by 7th 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 on the date fixed for information to the about compliance of this order by the learned counsel for the parties.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.