Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MADAN LAL versus A.D.J. MORADABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Madan Lal v. A.D.J. Moradabad & Others - WRIT - A No. 12441 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 2738 (20 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.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 instituted J.S.C.C suit no. 10 of 1997 for ejectment of the tenant and damages  on the allegation that the tenant has not paid rent since 1.1.1994.  In pursuance of order dated 26.8.1994 passed by Munsif Hasanpur, the petitioner deposited the rent in Court. Though the J.S.C.C suit no. 10 of 1997 was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 12.11.1999, revision against the said order filed by the landlord has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.3.2002.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgments and order passed by the respondent no. 1- revisiona Court, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

From the record it is apparent that the accommodation, in dispute possessed by the petitioner is a shop situate in Mohalla Holiwala, P.S Hasanpur, district Jyotiba Phuley Nagar at the rate of rent of Rs.220/- per month.  

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Courts below is unjust, improper and illegal.  He further submits that in case the petitioner is evicted from the disputed accommodation he 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 Court below.

 The accommodation in dispute in the possession of the petitioner-tenant is admittedly situated in the posh locality of Jyotiba Phuley Nagar.  The rent of Rs.220/- per month in respect of the aforesaid accommodation in question is too meagre. With the passage of time the value of  rent of the accommodation, in dispute, has increased many-fold and as such it has to be proportionately increased in addition to notional increase of 10% in rent every 5 years.

   It is not the case of the tenant that no accommodation is available to him on rent, per contra his case is that no shop is available on the rent, which he is 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."

     Having pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and location/area of the accommodation, in dispute, nature of construction etc. and the admitted position of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner, the rent is assassed as under :-

   One shop of 15' x 10' =150' dimension

   at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq. ft                                = Rs. 1200/-

             

It would, therefore, be appropriate that the rent of the disputed shop now be enhanced to Rs. 1200/- per month (Rupees One Thousand and Two Hundred) from December, 2006 to be paid on or before 7th January, 2007.  It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1200/- per month towards rent to the landlord till further orders with 10% increase in rent every 5 years which shall be payable to the landlord 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 this case in the month of July, 2007.  

Dated 20.2.2007

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.