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


Dr. Bal Dutt Tripathi v. D.J. Mirzapur & Others - WRIT - A No. 38433 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 18010 (19 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. 38433 of 2001

Dr. Bal Dutt Tripathi            versus      District Judge,Mirzapur and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent-landlords filed Suit No. 8 of 1983 before the Judge Small Causes Court/ Civil Judge, Mirzapur for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioner-tenant from the disputed premises consisting of three rooms, kitchen, bath room and verandah situate in Mohalla Ram Bag Radani Place,Mirzapur.

The petitioner-tenant filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations.

The trial Court vide order dated 7.3.2001 decreed the suit of the respondent-landlords.

           Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.3.2001 the petitioner filed revision before the Revisional Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2001, hence the writ petition.

The petitioner is tenant in the premises in suit situate in Mohalla Ram Bag Radani Place, Mirzapur on monthly rent of Rs.50-/-.

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

       The counsel for the petitioner submits that in case he 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 in the disputed accommodation on monthly rent of Rs.50/-.  The rent of Rs. 50/-per month in respect of the aforesaid disputed 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/shop etc. it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation now be increased to Rs. 3500/- per month  (Rs. 900/- per month for each room i.e. for three rooms Rs.900x3=Rs.2700/- Rs. 250/- per month for kitchen, Rs. 250/- per month for bath room and Rs. 300/- per month for verandah, total Rs. 3500/-+ water charges etc.) from October, 2006 payable in November, 2006.

It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3500/- 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 arrears of rent, if any and 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 in the month of March, 2007. On that date, the counsel for the parties shall submit compliance report.

Dated 19.10.2006





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.