Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHAIRO PRASAD versus ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhairo Prasad v. Addl. District Judge & Others - WRIT - A No. 40870 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 17277 (6 October 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. 40870 of 2001

Bhairo Prasad              versus      Additional District Judge Xth,

                                                    Kanpur Nagar and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3-landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar for release of the disputed tenanted portion of house no.11/45 consisting of  2 rooms, 2 kotharis,  one verandah, one shop of dodri and common courtyard, situate at Gwaltoili Kanpur Nagar under the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of his personal need. The release application was allowed exparte vide order dated 23.12.1988. Rent Appeal No. 26 of 1989 filed against the aforesaid order dated 23.12.1988 was also dismissed vide order dated 20.1.92, hence this writ petition.

The counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the petitioner is tenant in the aforesaid disputed accommodation on the ground floor where he is running shop and the first floor is being used by him for residential purpose. He prays that in the circumstances either the rent of the disputed accommodation may be increased suitably according to current market rate or the writ petition may be heard and decided on merit as neither the respondents nor any member of his family owns any other house except the house under the tenancy of the respondents.

       The counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the petitioner is evicted from the disputed accommodation he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and case for enhancement of the rent may be considered.

The rent of Rs.30/- per month in respect of the aforesaid accommodation in question appears to be inadequate rent for the accommodation in dispute.  A 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 as provided under Act No. XIII of 1972.

   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 landlords.

 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.

   Taking a pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and location/area of the accommodation etc. it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation now be increased to Rs. 8000/- per month (Rs. 12,00/-per month for each room i.e. for two rooms Rs. 12,00x 2= Rs.24, 00/-, Rs. 800/- per month for each kothari i.e. for two kothari Rs. 800 x2 = Rs. 16,00/-, Rs. 500/- for per month for verandah, Rs. 500/- per month for common courtyard and     Rs. 3,000/- per month for  one dodari commercial shop situate in the ground floor, total Rs. 8,000/- per month) from October, 2006. It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 8000/- per month towards rent to the landlord till further orders which shall be payable to the landlord by 7th day of each succeeding month. The rent fixed by this Court shall be increased 10% every 5 years till further orders according to the provisions of the Act.

In case of default in payment of the arrears of rent, if any and current rent as directed by this Court the landlords can get the disputed accommodation vacated with the help of police within a period of one month by giving notice in writing.

        List in the month of March 2007 when the counsel for the parties will inform the Court about the compliance of the order.

Dated 6.10.2006

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.