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


Kunwar Awanindra Dutt Dube v. State Of U.P. Trhu' Secy. Health Govt. Of U.P. Lkw. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 59689 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18544 (2 November 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. 59689 of 2006

Kunwar Awanindra Dutt Dube          versus      State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The respondent no.3 is tenant of disputed accommodation situated at Raj Colony Hussainabad Jaunpur City, district Jaunpur.

The petitioner filed an applicatio            n under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of the rent of the disputed accommodation under the tenancy of respondent no.3 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jaunpur which was registered as case no.7 of 1990/1988. The accommodation in tenancy of the respondents consists of 2614 sq.ft. of covered area of building with 11114 sq.ft.of land appurtenant. (Total 13728 sq.ft.).The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 26.8.1992 enhanced the rent of the accommodation in dispute from Rs.210/- to Rs.2500/- per month.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.8.1992 the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court which was allowed vide order dated 31.5.2005 enhancing the rent of the accommodation in dispute from Rs.2500/- per month to Rs.5035.22 per month. The order in appeal was not challenged by the respondents and has become final.

The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has moved an application before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, respondent no.2 for payment of arrears of rent as the accommodation in dispute was occupied on his behalf by respondent no.3, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur but the rent is not being paid to him.

It is surprising that the up-holders of law are not following the law. If the averments are correct, the conduct of respondent nos. 2 and 3, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur and Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur in non payment of rent which has been enhanced by a competent Court of law is not only contemptuous but speaks volumes of their attitude towards the order of Court.

Without making any comments on the conduct of respondent nos.2 and 3 they are granted one opportunity to file their personal counter affidavits separately to show cause as to why the order for payment of arrears of rent has not been complied with and the petitioner has not been paid enhanced rate of rent till date.  They may file their personal counter affidavits within two weeks from today. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within one week thereafter.

The application under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of the rent of the accommodation in dispute was filed in the year 1988, the rent ought to have increased 10% every 5 years as provided under  U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. However, since the landlord has suffered gross monetary loss, this Court can fix reasonable market rent balancing the equities in writ jurisdiction in view of the decisions rendered 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  wherein rent was increased to more than 28 times and in  Khurshida Vs. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC-64 =2004(54) ALR-177 wherein the rent was increased about fifty times and also it has been held  in para 7 of 2006(63) ALR 643 Smt. Zohra Vs. IVth A.D.J. Jhansi  that while granting relief to a tenant against eviction the writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent.

             Taking a pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case location as well as area of the accommodation etc. it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation now be increased as under:-

Covered area 2614 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq.ft. =Rs.10,456.00

For use of land approximate area 11114 sq.ft. lump sum =Rs.4000.00


                                                                       Total Rs.14456.00 per month


The rent of November, 2006 as fixed by this Court shall be payable by 7th December , 2006.

It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 14,456/- 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 arrears of rent, if any at 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 after expiry of the period of three weeks for further orders and for submission of compliance report.

Dated 2.11.2006





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.