High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raj Kumar Sharma v. Addl. District Judge & Others - WRIT - A No. 21616 of 2002  RD-AH 486 (9 January 2007)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21616 Of 2002
Raj Kumar Sharma
Additional District Judge-III, Kanpur Nagar and others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner alleges to have been allotted the shop in dispute to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per month in 1996.
It is claimed by the tenant that as per the demand of the respondent-landlord the petitioner paid rent of the shop in dispute for two years in advance at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 20/- per month besides Rs. 35,000/- as premium, but when the petitioner asked for receipt of the premium amounting to Rs. 35,000/- and rent paid in advance by him to the respondent-landlord for two years, the respondent-landlord issued the receipt of rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month instead of Rs. 20/- per month.
It appears that the petitioner thereafter deposited the rent in court. The respondent-landlord thereafter filed a suit before the Judge Small Cause Court on the ground of default in payment of rent besides filing an application under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority.
The petitioner contested the aforesaid application denying the allegation and alleged that during the pendency of the proceedings the respondent-landlord let out eight shops to different persons due to mala fide intention to harass the petitioner by the respondent-landlord.
The Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2000 dismissed the release application filed by the respondent-landlord. However, the appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority by the respondent-landlord was allowed by the lower appellate court vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2002, hence this writ petition by the petitioner-tenant.
When the case was taken up the learned counsel for the respondent prays that the rent of the shop in dispute may be increased proportionately according to the market rent prevalent in the area.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to this prayer.
Admittedly the petitioner is the tenant in the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- including water tax and house tax since 1996. The shop in dispute is said to be 5 ft X 4 ft. = 20 sq. ft situate in Mani Ram Bagia which is an important market place on Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar.
This rent looking to the present market rate of rent of houses/shops appears to be too meager in a city of Kanpur Nagar which would be wholly inadequate to maintain the accommodation in dispute much less for payment of even the water tax, house tax, electricity bills etc., as such the rent has to be proportionately increased during the pendency of the writ petition in order to balance equity.
Moreover, in view of the decisions rendered in Rajeshwari (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005 (1) ARC 526, Khurshida Vs. A.D.J., 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 Para 7 of the decision rendered in Smt. Zohra Vs IVth Additional District Judge, Jhansi, 2006 (63) A.L.R. 643 and 2004 (54) A.L.R. 177, and Hari Mohan Kichlu Vs. 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. 19685/06 arising out of Writ Petition No. 8972 of 2002 (Hari Shankar Bhardwaj Vs 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. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.12.2006 passed in the aforesaid S.L.P. No. 19685/2006 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."
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate that the rent of the accommodation in dispute be now enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month as agreed between the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner-tenant shall pay Rs. 800/- per month as the rent of the shop in dispute w.e.f. January, 2007 payable to the respondent-landlord by 7th February 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.
In default of payment of the enhanced rent as directed above by this Court, the respondent-landlord can get the shop in dispute vacated with the help of police, if necessary, within a period of one month by giving notice in writing to vacate the shop in dispute.
List this case in April 2007 to inform the Court 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.