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


Inder Kumar Sekhri v. The A.D.J., & Others - WRIT - A No. 5149 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 17284 (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).


   Court no. 7                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5149 of 2001

  Sri Inder Kumar Sekhari     vs.    The Additional District Judge/Special

                                                                  Judge (NDPS), Meerut and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlords filed SCC Suit No. 357 of 1982 against the petitioner-tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment from the dispute shop no. 178-F situate at  (Patalpuri) Cariappa Street Meerut Cantt. before the trial Court.

The petitioner filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations. The trial Court vide order dated 18.4.97 dismissed the suit of respondent-landlords.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.4.97 they filed SCC Revision No. 323 of 1997 before the Revisional Court which was allowed vide order dated 8.12.2000, hence this writ petition.

The counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner is tenant in the disputed shop on monthly rent of Rs.30/-, which is too low in the present scenario.   He prays that in the circumstances either the rent of the disputed shop may be increased suitably or the writ petition may be heard and decided on merit.

       The counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the petitioner is evicted from the disputed shop he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and no case for enhancement of the rent is made out.

The petitioner is tenant in the disputed shop no.178-F situate at  (Patalpuri) Cariappa Street Meerut, Cantt. Meerut on monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The rent of Rs. 30/- per month in respect of the aforesaid shop in question appears to be inadequate rent considering of the rooms of (17 ft.x 7 ft.x 2 = 238 sq.ft and land appurtenant admeasuring 24 ft. x 6 ft.= 144 sq.ft. on which it is alleged that the tenant-petitioner has unauthorizedly constructed another shop. Be that as it may without prejudice to any legal right that may be taken under law for removal of the unauthorized construction, for the purpose of rent in this case 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 shop 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.

   Taking a 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 shop now be increased to Rs. 4000/- per month from October, 2006. It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- 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 landlord 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





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.