Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHRI RAM MARATHA versus MAHENDRA KUMAR PANDEY AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shri Ram Maratha v. Mahendra Kumar Pandey And Another - WRIT - A No. 36215 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 17792 (16 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

   Court No. 7

                 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36215 Of 2003

Shri Ram Maratha

Versus

Mahendra Kumar Pandey & another

~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 is the landlord of the premises No. 54/45 (Old No. 54/36-C), Nayaganj, Kanpur Nagar since February 1976 initially on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- on the basis of a rent note and the petitioner claims to be tenant therein. The premises comprise three rooms measuring 8.8 ft. X 7 ft. = 61 sq. ft.; 7.8 ft. X 8.6 ft. = 65 sq. ft. and 7.8 ft. X 7.3 ft. = 56 sq. ft. Total 182 sq. ft.

It is alleged by the petitioner that his tenancy was extended further under rent note dated 19.1.1978 with enhancement of rent to Rs. 325/- per month. The petitioner-tenant was doing the business of Bullion Gold Refinery Trade (Sarrafa) in the premises in dispute till he received a notice from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in pursuance of an allotment application from respondent no. 1 dated 23.9.2000. In compliance of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer the Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 2.11.2000 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

The petitioner filed objection to the allotment application denying vacancy in the premises in dispute and stating that his tenancy was extended by rent note dated 19.1.1978 by respondent-landlord and by virtue of Section 14 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 he has got tenancy rights.

The landlord also filed counter-objection that the petitioner came in tenancy vide rent note dated 19.1.1978 and disputed the rent note dated 18.2.1976.    

The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy in the premises in dispute vide judgment and order dated 11.8.2003, hence this writ petition.

          The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He submits that in the circumstances of the case the rent of the disputed shop may be increased suitably.

In pursuance of order dated 9.10.2006 the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has filed supplementary affidavit after serving the same on the other side. In the Supplementary Affidavit it is specifically stated that the rental value of the property in the area is Rs. 100/- to Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. per month. It is further stated that the premises/shop is situate in Nayaganj which is one of the busiest commercial locality of Kanpur Nagar. It is further stated that the business of the petitioner of gold and silver refinery, which involves use of acids and other chemicals, causes pollution and extensive damage to the premises in dispute.

The rent of the premises/shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month is too meager in a city like Kanpur Nagar for payment of even taxes like water tax, house tax etc. With the passage of time, value of houses/shops has increased many folds and as such the rent has to be proportionately increased.

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 and Khurshida Vs. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC-64, High Court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.

Admit.

Having a pragmatic approach and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and location/area of the premises/shop in dispute as well as current rate of rent prevalent in the area, it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed shop be increased to Rs. 2000/- per month from October 2006 plus water and other taxes as well as electrical bill of the shop etc. payable by the tenant.  

It is accordingly directed that the petitioner-tenant shall pay Rs. 2000/- plus water tax etc. per month. The rent of the premises/shop in dispute w.e.f. October 2006 shall be paid to the respondent-landlord by 7th November 2006 and thereafter by 7th day of each succeeding month till further orders with 10% notional increase after every 5 years in accordance with the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 during the pendency of the writ petition.

         In default of payment of the enhanced rent as directed above by this Court, the respondent-landlord can get the disputed premises/shop vacated with the help of police, if necessary, within a period of one month by giving notice in writing to vacate the premises/shop in dispute in this regard.

        List this case in the first week of March 2007 to inform the Court about compliance of this order.

Dated: 16.10.2006

Rpk/


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.