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


Virendra Kumar Jain v. Smt. Madhuri Gupta - WRIT - A No. 588 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 18526 (1 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. 588 of 2005

         Virendra Kumar Jain      versus     Smt. Madhuri Gupta

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

  Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

  The petitioner is tenant of one shop and one small kothari situate on the ground floor of premises no. 106/260 Anand Bagh, Ghandhi Nagar,Kanpur  on monthly rent of Rs. 400/-.

The counsel for respondent-landlord submits that the rent of the disputed shop and Kothari is too low in the present scenario. He prays that in the circumstances the rent of the disputed shop and kothari may be increased suitably.

The counsel for petitioner-tenant submits that in case the petitioner is evicted from the disputed shop and kothari he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and case for enhancement of the rent may be considered.

The rent of Rs. 400/- per month in respect of the aforesaid shop and Kothari 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 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.

 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 shop and kothari now be increased to Rs. 1500/- per month (Rs. 1200/- per month for shop and Rs. 300/- per month for Kothari, total Rs. 1500/- per month) from November, 2006 payable by 7th December, 2006.

It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- 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 April, 2007

Dated 1.11.2006






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.