SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 746

2010 (6) Supreme 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Trust Jama Masjid Waqf No. 31 — Appellant
versus
M/s Lakshmi Talkies and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1237 of 2004
with
Civil Appeal No. 6175 of 2004
Decided on : 16-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of S. 29-A override any term to the contrary in the contract between the landlord and tenant or instrument or any other existing law.

Headnote:(a) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 29-A – For applicability of Section 29-A two conditions must be satisfied – Land alone has been let out, and – Permanent structure has been constructed by the tenant with landlord’s consent incurring his own expenses – Provisions of S. 29-A override any term to the contrary in the contract between the landlord and tenant or instrument or any other existing law. (Para 9)

        (b) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 29-A(5) – Initial rent as provided in the lease was enhanced to Rs. 105/- p.m. and the tenants continued to remain in possession of leased premises – Such possession does not render Section 29-A inoperative – In the absence of any agreed rent between the parties after expiry of lease, it is open to the landlord or tenant to get the annual rent determined in respect of such land on the basis of the prevailing market value – No infirmity in the impugned judgment. (Para 9)

        (c) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 29-A – Market value – Circle rate fixed under the Stamp Rules cannot be decisive of the prevalent market value – Ignoring the valuer’s report and the evidence led in cannot be justified – Similarly RCEO’s fixation of rent is also erroneous being 12808 instead of 128084 on the basis of the market value of 1280846. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

        These appeals arise out of the order of the High Court modifying the rent fixed by the Rent controller on the downside.

       Finding of Court:

        Both the courts below erred in their findings.

       

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated September 10, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court by that order modified the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura (for short, ‘RCEO’) dated March 13, 1991 and fixed the rent of the subject land at Rs. 2500/- p.m. w.e.f. June 1, 1984 instead of Rs. 12,808/- p.m. fixed by the RCEO w.e.f. June 2, 1977.

2. The brief facts are these. Trust of Jama Masjid Nawab Abdul Nabi Khan Chauk Bazar, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’) owns a piece of land admeasuring 914.89 sq. yds. Situate in Mohalla Naugaza, Mathura (for short, ‘the said land’/ ‘the demised land’). Prior to June 1, 1970, the said land was let out to some other tenant who, with the consent of the landlord, built a Cinema Hall thereon. M/s Laxmi Talkies, a registered partnership firm purchased the super structure (Cinema Hall ) from the erstwhile tenant and took the said land on lease from the landlord for a rent of Rs. 70/- p.m. from June 1, 1970 for a term of 7 years vide lease deed executed on June 2, 1970. For brevity, we shall refer M/s Laxmi Talkies – lessee as ‘tenants’. The lease provided that in case one month’s prior notice for renewal before the expiry of the lease was given by the tenants and landlord fails to renew then the lease shall continue for another term. The lease also provided that tenants will have a right of renewal of lease on the terms and conditions as agreed upon but on every renewal, the tenants shall be bound to enhance the rate of rent at 5% on total rent of the year at the time of every renewal. The landlord claims that on expiry of 7 years of lease, there was no agreement between the parties with respect to renewal of lease and the rent. On the other hand, the tenants claim that on expiry of first term, the lease was renewed from June 1, 1977 at the increased rent of Rs. 105/- p.m. and thereafter got automatically renewed from June 1, 1984.

3. The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, ‘1972 U.P. Act’) came to be amended by U.P. Act 28 of 1976 whereby Section 29-A was inserted. The newly inserted Section 29-A came into force on July 5, 1976. In the light of the provisions contained in Section 29-A, the landlord made an application for determination of the annual rent for the demised land before the RCEO, Mathura stating therein that the cost of the land leased out to the tenants was not less than Rs. 20 lakhs and, accordingly, they are entitled to have the rent fixed at Rs. 16,666.66 p.m. from July 5, 1976. The tenants contested the said application and raised the plea that the lease stood renewed from June 1, 1977 automatically and was operative upto 1991 and, therefore, no rent can be increased. They also disputed that the market value of the land was Rs. 20 lakhs as suggested by the landlord.

4. The landlord submitted affidavits in support of their claim along with a valuation report. The tenants filed affidavit in rebuttal.

5. In his order dated March 13, 1991, RCEO held that market value of land was not less than Rs. 1400/- per sq. yd. He thus computed the total cost of land at Rs. 12, 80,846/- and fixed the rent at Rs. 12,808/- p.m. Against this decision, the tenants filed a writ petition before the High Court. As noticed above, the High Court allowed the writ petition in part and fixed the rent at Rs. 2500/- p.m. payable from June 1, 1984.

6. Mr. H.C. Kharbanda, learned counsel for the landlord urged that the High Court erred in modifying the rent fixed by the RCEO on the basis of the circle rates fixed by the District Magistrate under Stamp Rules by holding that such rates are fixed on the higher side. Learned counsel would submit that the RCEO on the basis of the available material and substantive assessment of the factual position viz., that no land is available for sale in the area; the demised land is situate on the main Mathur




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top