Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHARAD CHANDRA CHET versus SHARAD BHATNAGAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sharad Chandra Chet v. Sharad Bhatnagar - WRIT - A No. 27579 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 72 (2 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

   Court No. 7

                 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27579 Of 2002

Sharad Chandra Chet Versus Sharad Bhatnagar

    ~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The respondent is the tenant of the petitioner in House No. 2541, State Bank Compound, Station Road, Mainpuri on a monthly rent of Rs. 170/-. It appears that the petitioner filed S.S.C. Suit No. 8 of 1990 against the respondent before the Judge Small Cause Court, Mainpuri for arrears of rent and ejectment. The respondent contested the suit by filing his written statement denying the plaint allegations.

The Judge Small Cause Court partly decreed the aforesaid suit of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 26.4.2001. The respondent filed S.S.C. Revision No.8 of 2001 before the District Judge, Mainpuri. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision it appears that the respondent filed a transfer application before this Court for transferring the aforesaid revision to another district. The petitioner having given his consent the revision was transferred by this Court vide its order dated 1.8.2001 to the Court of District Judge, Agra.

The District Judge, Agra after hearing both the parties allowed the revision and set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mainpuri vide judgment and order dated 10.4.2002.

From the Question-Answer issued by the office of the revisional court on 17.4.2002 appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition as well as from the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is revealed that the respondent has not deposited any rent after 10.4.2002.  

Admittedly the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner in the house in dispute prior to 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 170/- including water tax and house tax. As per the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner, the house in dispute comprises 3 rooms, 1 verandah, 1 kitchen, latrine, bath-room, 1 store and 2 court yards.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent of houses/shops is too meager for the aforesaid big accommodation in the city of Mainpuri which is insufficient for maintenance of the building and payment of water tax, house tax etc., as such the rent has to be proportionately increased during the pendency of the writ petition in order to balance equity.

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."

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.    

Admit.

In view of the facts and circumstances such as city, location in which the building is situated, nature and quality of its construction etc., it would be appropriate that the rent of the house in dispute be now enhanced as under: -

1 room 20 ft X 9 ft @ Rs. 1350/- = Rs. 1350/-

1 room 11 ft X 15 ft @ Rs. 1000/- = Rs. 1000/-

1 room 11 ft X 14 ft @ Rs. 1000/- = Rs. 1000/-

1 kitchen @ Rs. 500/- = Rs.  500/-

1 verandah @ Rs. 700/- = Rs.  700/-

1 latrine/bath room @ Rs. 250/- = Rs.  250/-

1 court yard 20 ft X 30 ft = Rs. 1100/-

1 open yard 20 ft X 19.2 ft = Rs. 1000/-

                                                               Total = Rs. 6900/-

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent-tenant shall pay Rs. 6900/- per month as the rent of the house in dispute w.e.f. January, 2007 payable to the petitioner-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 petitioner-landlord can get the house in dispute vacated with the help of police, if necessary, within a period of one month by giving notice in writing to vacate the house in dispute.

       List this case in May, 2007 to inform the Court about compliance of this order by the learned counsel for the parties.

Dated: 2.1.2007

Rpk/

                                 


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.