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


Dalbir Singh v. Ranjeet Kumar - WRIT - A No. 21780 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16465 (20 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. 21780 of 2006

Dalbir Singh


Ranjit Kumar


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Kaushalya Kaur filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed accommodation in the possession of the respondent-tenant on the ground that her son who was engaged in the business of running a finance company in partnership for the last several years had to give up the same due to change in Government policy relating to finance business and required the accommodation in dispute to establish a business in confectionary.

The respondent contested the matter and filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations.  

During the pendency of the release application the landlady Smt. Kaushalya Kaur died leaving behind her son Dalbir Singh, the petitioner, as her legal heir.  

The Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application vide order dated 6.10.2004. The landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge, Pilibhit who transferred the same to the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Pilibhit. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Pilibhit also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.1.2006.

From the record it is apparent that the shop in dispute possessed by the petitioner is situate in Central Market of Pilibhit at the rate of rent of Rs. 250/- per month.  

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are unjust improper and illegal.  He further submits that in case the respondent is not evicted from the disputed accommodation he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

         The learned counsel for the respondent-tenant submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid impugned orders of the courts below.

 The shop in dispute in the possession of the respondent-tenant is admittedly situated in the main market of Pilibhit.  The rent of Rs. 250/- per month in respect of the aforesaid accommodation in question is too meager. With the passage of time the value of house rent 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 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. 2000/- per month from October, 2006.  It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- 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 in the second week of January 2007. In the mean time counter and rejoinder affidavits may be exchanged.

Dated: 20.9.2006



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.