Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARDAR NARENDRA SINGH versus SMT. SATYAM DIXIT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sardar Narendra Singh v. Smt. Satyam Dixit - WRIT - A No. 33354 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 15622 (7 September 2006)

 

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. 33354 of 2004

         Sardar Narendra Singh         vs.      Smt. Kiran Gupta

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is tenant in respect of premises no. 120/511 Shivaji Nagar, Kanpur on monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month prior to 1976 which consists of three rooms, store, verandah, kitchen and balcony on the first floor.

It is alleged that proceedings for declaration of vacancy was initiated on the ground that petitioner is an unauthorized occupant and  has occupied the property in dispute in 1995. The petitioner filed objections stating that he is in occupation prior to 1976 and thus the tenancy stood regularized under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy by the impugned order dated 31.7.2004, hence this writ petition.  

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31.7.2004 of the Prescribed Authority is illegal, unwarranted and without jurisdiction and the petitioner is in occupation prior to 1975, therefore, the petitioner's tenancy in fact stood regularized under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as no proceedings were pending against him.

He next submits that after purchase of the property by the respondent petitioner is depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972 and even the order was passed the petitioner was permitted to deposit the amount, hence he was not an authorized occupant but was a tenant.

He further submits that the findings of the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner is an authorized occupant is perverse and that in case the petitioner is evicted from the disputed accommodation he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and no case for enhancement of the rent is made out.

       

              The counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.7.2004. He further submits that the rent of the disputed accommodation is too low being of Rs.200/- per month. He prays that in the circumstances either the rent of the disputed accommodation may be increased suitably or the writ petition may be dismissed.

Petitioner is tenant in respect of premises no. 120/511 Shivaji Nagar, Kanpur on monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month prior to 1976 which consists of three rooms, store, verandah, kitchen and balcony on the first floor. The rent of Rs. 200/- per month in respect of the aforesaid accommodation in question is too meager for the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner. Pragmatic approach has to be taken considering the location and rate of rent prevailing in the locality etc. With passage of time value of house rent has increased 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.

 The writ Court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent as has been held in Rajeshwari  (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005(1) ARC-526, Hari Mohan Kichlu Vs. VIIIth A.D.J. Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 (2) ARC-652 and Khurshida Vs. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC-64.

   Having pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and location/area of the shop etc. it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation now be increased to Rs. 3500/- per month from October, 2006(Rs. 800/- per month one room, three rooms  =Rs.2400/-, one store Rs. 250/- per month, one verandah Rs.350/- per month, one Kitchen Rs. 250/- per month and one balcony Rs. 250/- per month, total Rs. 35,00/-).  It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3500/- 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 as directed by this Court the landlord can get the disputed accommodation vacated with the help of police within a period of one month by giving notice in writing.

        List for hearing after three months.

Dated 6.9.2006

CPP/-

             

 


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.