Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1317 (ALL)

MOHD UMAR ALIAS MUNNA v. VTH A D J MEERUT

2008-07-11

S.U.KHAN

body2008
S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) -HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS is tenants writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Shaukat Ali filed S. C. C. suit No. 5 of 1993 against the tenants-petitioners for eviction from the house in dispute which contains two rooms. Rent is Rs. 3. 12 per month. Suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The tenants deposited certain amount (Rs. 500/-) and claimed benefit under section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which was granted to them by the Trial Court/j. S. C. C. Meerut, who dismissed the suit on 4. 3. 1997. ( 3 ) AGAINST the said judgment and decree landlord-respondent filed S. C. C. Revision No. 72 of 1997, Vth A. Q. J. Meerut allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 17. 3. 1999, set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction. Revisional Court allowed the revision on the ground that cost of the notice dated 30. 11. 1992 given by the landlord to the tenants before filing the suit (amounting to Rs. 150/-) was not deposited. In the plaint it was not stated that plaintiff had incurred any expenses in sending the notice. It was only by way of replica that this fact was stated. The copy of replica is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In para 4 of the said replica it was stated that on the first date of hearing of the suit tenant was required to deposit Rs. 629. 29, however he had deposited only Rs. 500/ -. In the said para split of requirement was also given which included Rs. 150 as cost of the notice. Replica was filed on 1. 8. 1994. Written statement had been filed on 6. 9. 1993 and it was stated in para 16 thereof that entire required amount amounting to Rs. 500/- was being deposited to claim the benefit of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1974. Trial Court held that the said amount was deposited even before the first date. 8. 1994. Written statement had been filed on 6. 9. 1993 and it was stated in para 16 thereof that entire required amount amounting to Rs. 500/- was being deposited to claim the benefit of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1974. Trial Court held that the said amount was deposited even before the first date. ( 4 ) AS in the plaint nothing was stated about cost of the notice, hence it was not necessary for the tenant-petitioner to deposit the same in order to claim the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. Otherwise the deposit was admittedly complete. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed, judgment, order and decree passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit is restored. ( 6 ) HOUSE in dispute consists of two rooms and is situate in Meerut. Rent of Rs. 3. 12 per month is ridiculous. ( 7 ) I have held in Khursheeda v. A. D. J. ,2004 (55) ALR 586 (HC ). and H. M. Kichlu v. A. D. J. ,2004 (2) ARC 652. that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the Courts below, writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. ( 8 ) IN the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority of M. V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, air 1998 SC 602 . where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court had further held that frozen rents are giving rise to lawlessness and landlords out of frustration are approaching muscle man to get the premises vacated and Courts of law are becoming redundant in this sphere. This authority has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) by L. Rs. v. Union of India and another, (2008) 5 SCC 287 =2008 (71) ALR 499 (SC ). part of para 29 and para 34 of which are quoted below:- "29. This authority has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) by L. Rs. v. Union of India and another, (2008) 5 SCC 287 =2008 (71) ALR 499 (SC ). part of para 29 and para 34 of which are quoted below:- "29. It is trite to say that legislation which may be quite reasonable and rationale at the time of its enactment may with the lapse of time and/or due to change of circumstances become arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the doctrine of equity and even if the validity of such legislation may have been upheld at a given point of time, the Court may, in subsequent litigation, strike down the same if it is found that the rationale of classification has become non-existent. 34. In Malpe Vishywanath Acharya and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra), the Court found that the criteria for determination and fixation of rent by freezing or by pegging down of rent as on 1. 9. 1940 or as on first date of letting, had, with the passage of time become irrational and arbitrary but did not strike down the same on the ground that extended period of Bombay Rent Act was coming to an end on 31. 3. 1998. " ( 9 ) UNDER U. P. Rent Control Act, there is no provision of enhancement of rent after October, 1972 (except where landlord is public charitable or public religious institution (section 9-A) or Government is tenant (section 21 (8) ). In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda, I have also placed reliance upon the authority of Supreme Court in Shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, air 1996 SC 2410 . paragraph 11 of which is quoted below:- "it is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief. " ( 10 ) THEREAFTER in para 8 of the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda, I held as under:- "rent Control Act confers a reasonable advantage upon the tenant of protection against arbitrary eviction. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bona fide need of the landlord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alteration etc. This advantage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equitable. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of S. F. P. v. L. J. C. , air 1996 SC 2410 . has Lald down that while granting relief to a party the writ Court can very well ask the said party to shed the unfair advantage which it gained under the impugned order. By slightly extending the said doctrine it may safely be held that while granting the reasonable advantage to the tenant conferred upon him by the Rent Control Act the tenant may be asked to shed the un-rea-sonable arbitrary advantage conferred upon him by the said Rent Control Act. The writ Court therefore while granting or maintaining the relief against arbitrary ejectment to the tenant, can very well ask the tenant to shed the un-reasonable benefit of the Rent Control Act granted to him in the form of immunity against enhancement of rent, however inadequate the rent might be. Tenant will have to shed the undue advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Act to barter his protection from arbitrary eviction provided for by the said Act. " ( 11 ) THEREAFTER in H. M. Kitchlu v. A. D. J. ,2004 (2) ARC 652. Tenant will have to shed the undue advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Act to barter his protection from arbitrary eviction provided for by the said Act. " ( 11 ) THEREAFTER in H. M. Kitchlu v. A. D. J. ,2004 (2) ARC 652. I have held that the same principle of enhancement of rent to a reasonable extent may be made applicable while dismissing the writ petition of the landlord for the reason that by doing so writ Court approves the protection of Rent Control Act granted to the tenant by the Courts below. Accordingly, rent is enhanced to Rs. 750/- per month payable from July, 2008 onwards. Petition Disposed Of. .