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


Mohammad Ahmad v. Dr. Atma Ram Chauhan - WRIT - A No. 39727 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 2355 (13 February 2007)


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. 39727of 2004

Mohammad Ahmad                versus      Dr. Atma Ram Chauhan

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.


   Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

  The petitioner is tenant of the two disputed shops situate at Jaitpura Sadan Building Chakrauta Road, Qusba and  Tehsil Vaihat, district Saharanpur on monthly rent of Rs. 600/-.

  The counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the rent of the aforesaid disputed shops is too low in the present scenario. He prays that in the circumstances the rent of the disputed shop may be increased reasonably according to the market rate.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the case for enhancement of rent may be considered by the Court according to the condition, location and situation etc. of the disputed shop. He further submits that in case the petitioner is evicted from the disputed shop he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

             The rent of Rs.600/- per month in respect of the aforesaid disputed shops in question appears to be inadequate rent for the accommodation in dispute. A pragmatic approach has to be taken considering the area 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 accommodation is available on the rent, which he is paying at present to the landlord.

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, the writ Court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent as has also been held by this Court 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.

             In S.L.P. No.  19685/06 arising out of Writ Petition No. 8972 of 2002 ( Hari Shankar Bhardwaj Vs. Dharmmendra Kumar Gupta) the Hon'ble Surpeme Court has affirmed the view of this Court that the   rent of the houses/building/shops may be fixed under Article 226 of the Constitution having a pragmatic approach and taking into consideration the area, location, nature of construction, current market rate of rent, locality etc. In the aforesaid case rent had been fixed by the Court under Article 226 to Rs.6500/- per month in the same manner as it is being fixed in the instant case. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.12.2006 passed in the aforesaid S.L.P. No. 19685/2006 runs as under:-

        " Heard learned counsel for the parties.

           We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

           The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, time granted by the impugned order making the deposit is extended to 7th January,2007."

              The Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (M/s) Vs. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2005(2) Allahabad Rent Cases-936 has held that-

        "  In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs.371.90 rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq.ft. have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per month. The Rent Control Tribunal was right in putting the tenant on term of payment of Rs.15,000/- per month charges for use and occupation during the pendency of appeal. The Tribunal took extra care to see that the amount was retained in deposit with it until the appeal was decided so that the amount in deposit could be disbursed by the appellate Court consistently with the opinion formed by it at the end of the appeal. No fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. The High Court has interfered with the impugned order of the Tribunal on an erroneous assumption that any direction for payment by the tenant to the landlord of any amount at any rate above the contractual rate of rent could not have been made. We cannot countenance the view taken by the High Court. We may place on record that it has not been the case of the tenant-respondent before us, nor was it in the High Court, that the amount of Rs.15, 000/- assessed by the Rent Control Tribunal was unreasonable or grossly on the higher side."

           Taking a pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, location as well as area of the shop and construction etc.  the rent of the two disputed shops is  fixed  Rs. 2100/- per month. The rent of February, 2007 as fixed by this Court shall be payable in March , 2007.                                    

It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2100/- 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.

In case of default in payment of current rent as directed by this Court the landlord may take action against the tenant in accordance with law.

        List in the month of July, 2007. The counsel for the parties shall submit compliance report on that date.

Dated 13.2.2007






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.