Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

U.P. SARVAJANIK NIRMAN VIBHAG MAZDOOR SABHA KAUSHAMBI versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


U.P. Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sabha Kaushambi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 4886 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 15651 (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. 48863 of 2003

            Surendra Kumar Agarwal       vs. Alfred Michel

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel   for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioner for release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that it is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The respondent filed Inspection report of an Architect D.L. Nagpal dated 15.11.1999 in which it was stated that the house in possession of the respondent is in a sound and livable condition.  The trial Court vide order dated 24.8.2000 allowed the release application of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24.8.2000 the respondent filed appeal before the appellate which was allowed vide order dated 1.10.2003, hence this writ petition.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has committed illegality in holding that the building in dispute is not in dilapidated condition and it does not require demolition and reconstruction and the finding recorded by the appellate Court is wholly perverse and is based on misconstruction of the evidence on record and in any view of the matter the appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and to substitute is own finding and that the rent of the disputed accommodation is too low being of Rs.16/- per month. He prays that in the circumstances the rent of the disputed accommodation may be increased suitably or the writ petition may be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

          The counsel for the respondent- tenant submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate Court.  He further submits that in case he is evicted from the disputed  accommodation, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and no case for enhancement of the rent is made out. He further submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

 The respondent is tenant in the accommodation in dispute i.e. house no. 16/17 situate in Mohalla Arvindpuri, West End Road, Meerut Cantt on monthly rent of Rs.16/- for the last about 50 years.  The rent of Rs. 16/- per month in respect of the aforesaid accommodation in question is too meager. 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 accommodation 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. 2500/- per month from October, 2006.  It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- 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.

Sri P.K. Jain, Advocate states that the counter affidavit is under preparation and his file is missing.  In the circumstances, he may be granted two weeks' time for filing counter affidavit and for reconstruction of the file. As prayed by him two weeks' time is allowed for filing counter affidavit and for reconstruction of the file.

        List after two weeks.

Dated 7.9.2006

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.