Back
2001 Supreme(All) 619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. Rathi, J.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE - Respondents
C. M. W. P 12887 Of 2001
Decided On : 07/05/2001
PRAKASH PADIYA, R.G.PADIA, RAJESH TANDON, Shiv Nath Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act, No. XIII of 1972 and the applicability of Order XXII, Rule 10, C.P.C. were crucial in determining the entitlement to pursue a rent enhancement application.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Rent Enhancement - Section 21(8) of U.P. Act, No. XIII of 1972 - Section 3(j) - Section 8 of Transfer of Property Act - Order XXII, Rule 10, C.P.C. - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act, No. XIII of 1972, Section 3(j) and Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as the applicability of Order XXII, Rule 10, C.P.C. The court highlighted the interpretation of these provisions and their influence on the decision regarding the entitlement to receive rent and the maintainability of the rent enhancement application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation, contested an application for rent enhancement under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act, No. XIII of 1972, moved by the respondent. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer ordered the rent to be enhanced, but the petitioner challenged the decision, arguing that the respondent was not entitled to pursue the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not entitled to further pursue the rent enhancement application, and the orders for rent enhancement were quashed. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits and that a future application under Section 21(8) would be disposed of on its merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was rightly substituted in place of the original applicant and whether the rent enhancement application was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no provision for substitution of names in proceedings under Section 21(8) of the Act, and the provisions under Order XXII, C.P.C. did not apply. It concluded that the respondent was not entitled to pursue the application and file an appeal against the rent enhancement order.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders for rent enhancement, stating that the application moved by the respondent was not maintainable. It clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits and that a future application under Section 21(8) would be disposed of on its merits.
B. K. RATHI, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner. Indian Oil Corporation in both writ petitions, is the tenant of house No. 15b, amar Nath Jha Marg, Allahabad. An application for enhancement of rent under Section 21 (8) of u. P. Act, No. XIII of 1972 was moved by Sri S. N. Vaish, respondent with the request that the rent which is Rs. 1,175 be enhanced to Rs. 50,000 per month. The application was contested by the petitioner and he filed written statement. Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 4, Sri Prakash Azad moved an application under Order XXII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for his impleadment. His application is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The same was opposed by the petitioner by objection, Annexure-9 to the writ petition. It appears that no separate order was passed on the application of respondent No. 4, Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The matter was finally considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 2, and he recorded a finding that the respondent No. 4. Sri Prakash Azad has become entitled to receive the rent. He, by order, Annexure-12 to the writ petition ordered that the rent be enhanced to Rs. 8,400 per month. However, he avoided to pass an specific order as to whether the respondent No. 3 or respondent No. 4 will be entitled to receive the enhanced rent, though in the body of the judgment, he recorded a finding that respondent No. 4 has become entitled to realise rent.
( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the enhancement of the rent, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 69 of 2000 before the District Judge, Allahabad against respondent No. 3 and the District Magistrate, allahabad. The respondent No. 4, Sri Prakash Azad also preferred Appeal No. 49 of 2000 requesting for further enhancement of the rent. In Appeal No. 69 of 2000 the respondent No. 4 was not impleaded as party by the petitioner. Therefore, he moved an application for impleading him as parry in that appeal. The application was allowed by order dated 14. 11. 2000 and he was impleaded as party in Appeal No. 69 of 2000 also. Thereafter, both the appeals were disposed of on 26. 2. 2001 by common Judgment by the respondent No. 1, Annexure-15 to the writ petition. He enhanced the rent of the premises In dispute to Rs. 41,284 per month. Aggrieved by judgments, two separate writ petitions mentioned above have been filed by the petitioner as two appeals were decided by the same judgment. Therefore, both this petitions involve the same question and accordingly are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 3 ) I have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, senior advocate for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, senior advocate for the respondent No. 4.
( 4 ) ON the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the first question that arises for decision in these petitions is whether the respondent No. 4 was rightly substituted in place of Sri S. N. Vaish in the case and the Appeal No. 49 of 2000 preferred by the respondent No. 4 was maintainable. There is no dispute regarding the facts that application for enhancement of rent under Section 21 (8) of the Act was moved by the respondent No. 3 alone. The respondent No. 4 moved an application for substitution of his name under Order XXII, Rule 10, C. P. C. It is admitted case of the parties that no separate order was passed on that application. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the matter of substitution in the judgment and held that respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit on 4. 12. 1979 according to which he has been nominated by the respondent No. 3 for the freehold of the land and has been given the right to realise the rent. Considering the entire evidence, on the record, the Rent Control and Eviction officer has held that respondent No. 4 has become landlord and is entitled to the rent. This finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was also confirmed by the appellate court. As regards this finding, after considering the arguments and the evidence on the record, I am of t
