Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 688 (ALL)

State Of U. P. v. Santosh Kumar Srivastava

2010-02-23

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against an appellate order dated 19th of August 2009 by which the learned District Judge has allowed the application of the respondent landlord under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act") by increasing the rent from Rs.1680/- to Rs.8856/- per month. 3. The petitioner tenant was in occupation of the disputed premises belonging to the respondent landlord standing over an area of about 840 sq. ft. and which was taken on rent in November 1991 at Rs.1680/- per month. An application under Section 21 (8) of the Act was filed for increasing the rent which was rejected by the Rent Controller and on appeal the III Addl. District Judge has allowed the application relying upon the valuation report and fixing the monthly rent at Rs.8856/- per month. 4. The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of Section 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(g) of the Act, Section 21 does not apply and therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. 5. A perusal of Section 2 of the Act shows that the Act would not apply to any building of which the Government or the local authority or a Public Sector Corporation is the landlord or if it is vested in any recognised institution. The Act also exempts any building whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.2000/-. There is nothing on record to show that the building belongs to the Government or any local authority or is vested in any recognised institution. Further, it is admitted that the monthly rent was less than Rs.2000/- on the date when the application for enhancement was filed. Clause (8) of Section 21 of the Act itself says that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act with regard to release of building for personal need would not apply where the State Government or the local authority is the tenant. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent landlord is seeking release of the accommodation under clause (a) of Section 21(1) of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent landlord is seeking release of the accommodation under clause (a) of Section 21(1) of the Act. In fact the proviso to the section itself says that in the case of building let out to the Government or the local authority etc., the District Magistrate would be empowered to enhance the monthly rent to a sum equivalent to 1/12th of 10% of the market value of the building under tenancy. Thus, the argument is bereft of any substance. 6. No other point has been urged. 7. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.