Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3204 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Asha Rani

2010-10-19

RAKESH TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.1967 ground floor, consisting of area 52 sq. meters of house no. 117 Balupura, Ratiram Road, Ghaziabad was let out to petitioner no.2 by the respondent landlady. Case No. 13 of 1994, under Section 21(8) of Rent Control Act, 1972 was filed by the landlady for enhancement of the rent of the accommodation in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 20.4.1997 enhanced the rent @ Rs.750/- per month. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.4.1997, the landlady preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 1997 before the District Judge, Ghaziabad which was finally disposed of by the appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.1.2000 enhancing the rent of the accommodation in dispute @ Rs.1,875/- per month. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24608 of 2000, State of U.P. and others versus Smt. Asha Rani was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.1.2000 of the appellate Court in which an interim order was passed on 22.5.2000. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the landlady again filed an application under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ghaziabad which was registered as Case No. 1 of 2007, Smt. Asha Rani versus Weight and Measurement Department and others. 5. The case set up by the landlady was that the petitioner is a tenant @ Rs.1875/- . It is stated that the landlady by concealing the fact about the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition arising out of the proceedings of Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 1997, claimed the rent @ Rs.7,447/- per month. 6. Petitioners tenants filed objection on 13.9.2007 denying the allegations made in the application. The case set up by the petitioners before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ghaziabad was that the they are the tenants of ground floor of House No.117 and at present the dispute regarding enhancement of the rent is subjudice before the High Court, hence the application filed under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not maintainable. The valuation of the property in question was also disputed by the petitioners tenants and it is specifically stated that the property in dispute is not situated on the main road as alleged by the landlady; it was contended that the method of calculating the valuation of the land on the basis of circle rate is wholly illegal as the building in dispute is situated in a narrow street far from the main road, thus the circle rate which was made basis for calculation of market price of the property, will not apply, because the property in dispute is situated in the narrow street of Ratiram Road, Ghaziabad. The landlady filed a private valuer report. However, on behalf of petitioners tenants Sri Karan Singh, Senior Inspector Weight and Measurement Department filed affidavit against the evidence. 7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ghaziabad vide order dated 24.10.2008 allowed the application filed by the landlady and enhanced the rent from Rs.1875/- per month to Rs. 7447/- per month w.e.f. 1.6.2007. 8. Aggrieved by order dated 24.10.2010 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioners tenants filed Rent Control Appeal No. 87 of 2008 on the ground that the enhancement of rent from Rs.1875/- to Rs. 7747/- is highly excessive and it is beyond the purview of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as no application for enhancement can be entertained prior to five years from the final order of previous fixation of enhanced rent of the property in dispute. Admittedly, the fixation of rent made by the appellate Court in case no. 14 of 1997 was still pending before the High Court and the High Court has already taken cognizance and entertained the petition filed by the petitioners tenants, hence, on the date of filing of the second application for enhancement of rent by the landlady, the matter was subjudice before the High Court. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 5.2.2010 and decree dated 15.2.2010 illegally dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners tenants affirming the order dated 24.10.2008 of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ghaziabad. 10. This writ petition is reported by the Stamp Reporter to be beyond time by 148 days which has not been explained properly by the counsel for the petitioners. 10. This writ petition is reported by the Stamp Reporter to be beyond time by 148 days which has not been explained properly by the counsel for the petitioners. The petition suffers from latches in view of the judgment rendered in State of U.P. and another versus Jaipal Singh, (2010 (82) ALR-71. Moreover, the order of this Court dated 11.10.2010 has not been complied with by the petitioners, hence for this reason also the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.