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


Keshav Chandra Jain v. Sri Devi Ji Maharani Virajman Mandir & Another - WRIT - A No. 17126 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 17924 (18 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. 17126 of 2002

Keshav Chandra Jain                versus       Sri Devi Ji Mahraj Virajman

                                                                   Mandir, Mahavirganj,Aligarh.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/ Addl. Civil Judge, Aligarh for release of a portion of the disputed accommodation consisting of 4 rooms, latrine and bath room in House No. 9/53 situate at Mahavirganj, district Aligarh.

The petitioner filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations.

The trial Court vide order dated 1.2.95 allowed the release application of the respondent-landlord.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 1.2.95 the petitioner filed U.P. U.B. Appeal No. 13 of 1995 and Respondent no.2 filed U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 7 of 1995 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court vide order dated 27.3.2002 dismissed both the aforesaid appeals, hence this writ petition by the petitioner.

The petitioner is tenant in the aforesaid disputed accommodation on monthly rent of Rs.25/-.

The counsel for respondent submits that the rent of the disputed accommodation is too low. He prays that in the circumstances the rent of the disputed accommodation may be increased suitably.

       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 petitioner is tenant of the disputed accommodation on monthly rent of Rs. 25/-.  The rent of Rs. 25/- 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 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 accommodation now be increased to Rs. 4500/- per month (Rs. 1000/- for each room i.e. for 4 rooms Rs.1000x4= Rs.4, 000/- and Rs. 500/- per month for latrine and bath room, total Rs. 4500/-) from October, 2006 payable in November, 2006.

It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 4500/- per month towards rent to the landlord till further orders which shall be payable to the landlord thereafter 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. On that date, the counsel for the parties shall submit compliance report.

Dated 18.10.2006





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.