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


Vijai Pal Singh v. Special Judge/Additional D.J. Bijnor And Another - WRIT - A No. 47283 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 16422 (19 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).


   Court No. 7                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47283 Of 2005

Vijai Pal Singh


Special Judge/Addl. District Judge, Bijnor and another


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant in the shop in dispute since 5.9.1995 at the rate of rent of Rs. 437/- per month. It is alleged that the respondent-landlord wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 452/- w.e.f. 2.8.1999, which the petitioner refused. Despite repeated requests when the landlord did not agree to accept the rent at the rate of Rs. 437/-, hence the petitioner sent Rs. 4370/- by money order on 7.7.2000 being the amount of rent for the period 3.8.1999 to 2.6.2000, which was also refused by the landlord.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed Suit No. 48 of 2000 for depositing rent under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner alleges to have further sent Rs. 5681/- by money order on 18.8.2000 being the amount of rent for the period 3.8.1999 to 2.9.2000, but when the same was again refused to be accepted by the respondent-landlord, then he deposited the rent in court vide tender dated 14/18.9.2000 and since then the petitioner alleges to be depositing the rent in court in Suit No. 48 of 2000.

The respondent-landlord also filed S.C.C. Suit No. 44 of 2000 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the shop in dispute was constructed after 1990 and as such the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the shop in dispute and further that an agreement was entered into under which enhancement of 3% rent per annum was agreed which the petitioner has not complied with.

The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations of Suit No. 44 of 2000 filed by the respondent-landlord and stating that no agreement whatsoever was ever entered into between them.

The trial court dismissed the suit of the landlord vide order dated 3.8.2001 against which the landlord filed a revision before the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Bijnor who allowed the revision and decreed the suit vide order dated 6.5.2005, hence this writ petition.  

          The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid impugned order of respondent no. 1 as the rent of the disputed shop is too low being Rs. 437/- only per month. He prays that in the circumstances the rent of the disputed shop may be increased suitably OR the writ petition may be dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner is tenant in the shop in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 437/- since 5.9.1995. This rent is too meager for a shop in the city like Bijnor. With the passage of time, the value of house rent has increased many folds and as such, it has to be proportionately increased in addition to notional increase by 10% after every 5 years.

It is not the case of the tenant that no shop is available to him on rent. Per contra, his case is that no shop at the reasonable rate of rent is available to him.

In view of the decisions rendered 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, the writ court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.


Having pragmatic approach and 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 shop now be increased to Rs. 1200/- per month from September 2006 payable by 7th of October 2006.  

It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall, w.e.f. September 2006, pay Rs. 1200/- per month as the rent of the shop in dispute payable to the landlord by 7th day of each succeeding month till further orders with 10% increase in rent after every 5 years.

         In default in payment of the enhanced rent as directed above by this Court, the landlord may get the disputed shop vacated with the help of police, if necessary, within a period of one month by giving notice in writing to the tenant to vacate the shop in dispute.

        List this case for hearing in the second week of January 2007.

Dated: 19.9.2006



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.