Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ashok Kumar Sharma And Others v. Bhagwati Prasad Sharma And Anoher - WRIT - A No. 33134 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 525 (10 January 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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that landlord filed release application  under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 for eviction of the petitioner-tenants from the shop in dispute on the ground that his son Sri Narayan Sharma wants to open his chamber for the purpose of dealing with his clients.

Petitioner-tenants contested the release application denying the plaint allegations.

The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide judgment dated 23.7.2001.

Aggrieved, the petitioner-tenants preferred U.P.U.B Appeal No. 10 of 2001 which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 12.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hathras.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, the petitioners have 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 petitioners is a shop situate in Chauraha Sashna Gate, Kamla Bazar, Hathras at the rate of rent of Rs.145/- per month.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are unjust, improper and illegal.  He further submits that in case the petitioners are evicted from the disputed accommodation they 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 Courts below.

 The accommodation in dispute in the possession of the petitioner-tenant is admittedly situated in Chauraha Sashna Gate, Kamla Bazar, Hathras. The rent of Rs145/- 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 tenants that no accommodation is available to them on rent, per contra their case is that no shop is available on the rent, which they are 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."

    The counsel for the petitioners offered a sum of Rs.1000/- as rent during the pendency of the writ petition. The counsel for the respondents states that the shop will fetch not less than Rs.1500/- per month.

Admittedly, the shop is situate in Shashni Gate, Kamla Bazar, Hathras is a small shop, hence, 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 Rs. 1000/- per month.

It would, therefore, be appropriate that the rent of the disputed shop now be enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month (Rupees One Thousand) from January, 2007 to be paid on or before 7th February, 2007.  It is accordingly directed that the tenants shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- 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 last week of April, 2007.  

Dated 10.1.2007



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.