Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2091 (ALL)

Kaushal Kumar Savita v. Vinay Kumar Bajpayee

2007-08-09

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
ORDER : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner is tenant of a shop situate in Premises No. 128/8 Block C, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, which was constructed and assessed for the first time in 1955-56. 3. The contention of the counsel for the respondents is that the respondents landlord filed an application u/s 6 read with Section 8 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of the rent of the disputed shop on the ground that they have erected a balcony with the consent of the petitioner tenant in front of his shop for the benefit of the tenant as he was complaining that rains water, dust and sunlight in the summer season directly lash in the shop which causes inconvenience to his business. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not given any such consent. 5. He further submits that the rent could not have been enhanced and the application filed by the landlords for enhancement of the rent is not maintainable as there is no provision under Sections 4 (2), 8 and 9 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of rent in the circumstances which only prescribes fixation of rent as agreed between the parties and in absence thereof the standard rent. He further relied upon Sub-section (2) of Section 8 and submits that in cases of dispute regarding standard rent on an application of the tenant or of his own motion, may, after giving to the landlord an opportunity of being heard, direct the local authority concerned to enhance the assessment in accordance with the agreed rent with effect from the date from which the agreed rent has been payable or the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in the law relating to that local authority, the assessment shall be corrected accordingly. 6. The counsel for the respondents landlords has drawn the attention of the Court towards the provisions of Section 6 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and submits that the provisions of Section 4 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not apply in the instant case. 7. Section 6 clearly provides for enhancement of rent, where improvement is made in the building with the consent of the tenant. 7. Section 6 clearly provides for enhancement of rent, where improvement is made in the building with the consent of the tenant. It is as under: 6. Effect of improvement on rent. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4 or Section 3, but subject to the provisions of Section 8, where the landlord has, after the commencement of this Act, either with the consent of the tenant or in pursuance of any requirement of law, made any improvement in a building, he may by notice in writing to the tenant given within three months from the date of completion of the improvement enhance the monthly rent of the building by an amount not exceeding one per cent of the actual cost of such improvement with effect from the said date, and thereupon the standard rent of that building shall stand enhanced accordingly. 8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that rent cannot be enhanced under any provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has no force because Section 6 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, clearly provides that if the landlord has made certain improvements in the building the rent of the building can be enhanced with the consent of the tenant. The courts below have unequivocally recorded findings of facts that improvement has been made for the benefit of the petitioner tenant with his consent and has fixed Rs. 1,680 per month as rent accordingly. 9. The application filed by the landlords for enhancement of the rent in view of the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 8 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is maintainable and the courts below have rightly enhanced the rent of the disputed shop considering the increasing value of the house after improvement/new construction which has been made with the consent of the petitioner tenant. For the reasons stated above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the court below. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.