Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARDAR INDRAJEET SINGH PURI versus A.D.S.J. (COURT NO. 16), AGRA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sardar Indrajeet Singh Puri v. A.D.S.J. (Court No. 16), Agra And Others - WRIT - A No. 6878 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2175 (9 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  Sri B.K. Srivastava, Advocate holding breief of Sri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Standing counsel has accepted notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.  Issue notices to the other respondents returnable at an early date.

The case of the petitioner is that Smt. Priya Devi w/o late Narayan Dass resident of Namak Mandi Agra was landlady or building no. 189 Aulia Road, Cheelgarh Rakabganj Ward, Agra and the petitioner is the tenant of a portion consisting of 2 rooms, 1 Dalan (Verandah), latrine/bathroom, one out-house (Vahya Grah) and land appurtenant on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- including taxes.

Smt. Priya Devi, landlord has created a trust in the name and style ''Shri Narain Dass Kagaj Wale Dharmarth Trust, Agra'. Smt. Laxmi Devi and others were appointed trustees of the trust.

After death of Smt. Priya Devi, the petitioner started paying rent to Smt. Laxmi Devi, trustee.

A registered notice dated 27.9.1993 was sent by Sri Shreenath alias Ram Shankar- respondent no. 3 to the petitioner terminating the tenancy of the petitioner on expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the said notice.

On receitp of aforesaid notice, apart from replying the same, the petitioner also sent rent to respondent no. 3 by money orders, which was refused. The petitioner, therefore, filed Misc. Case No. 230 of 1994 for depositing the rent in Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which was allowed vide order dated 21.11.1995 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Agra.  Civil Revision No. 46 of 1996 preferred by the respondent no. 3 was also dismissed vide order dated 11.7.1997 passed by the revisional Court.

Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 preferred J.S.C.C Suit 222 of 1994 for recovery of Rs.1916/- as rent with pendentelite anf future interest @ 9% per annum, which has been decreed vide impugned judgment dated 12.10.2006 and the revision against the same has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 21.12.2006.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.  seeking release of the tenanted accommodation on the ground of bona fide need.  

From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner-tenant is paying Rs. 20/- per month as rent, including taxes of the aforesaid accommodation.

Looking to the present rates of market rent of houses/shops the rent being paid to the landlord is too meager for the aforesaid accommodation in a city like Agra 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:-

Rent of 2 rooms @ Rs.1000/- per room   ...                    Rs.2000/-

Rent of 1 Dalan (Verandah)                     ...                     Rs. 500/-

latrine/bathroom                                      ...                     Rs. 250/-

one out-house (Vahya Grah)                    ...                     Rs. 250/-

                                                                       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 him.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the petitioner-tenant shall pay Rs.3000/-, per month as the rent of the house 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 in July, 2007 to inform the Court about compliance of this order by the learned counsels for the parties.

Dated 9.2.2007/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.