Back
2006 Supreme(All) 963
[2006(9) ADJ 32 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.U. KHAN, J.
LALJI TANDON AND OTHERS .Petitioners
Versus
CITY MAGISTRATE/RENT CONTROL & EVICTION OFFICER, FATEHGARH AND OTHERS .Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29887 of 1992, decided on 31st March, 2006)
S.C. Budhwar for the Petitioner; S.D. Pathak, S.C. for the Respondents.
IMPORTANT POINT
Liability to pay enhanced rent accrues on the date on which original agreement expires.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Section 29-A(5)—Interpretation of—Market value of the property—Determination of—From which date—Enhanced rent shall be payable from the date of expiry of agreement or lease—Liability to pay enhance rent accrues on the date on which original agreement expires—R.C. & E.O. have no jurisdiction to determine the market value on the date of filing the application. [Paras 8 and 9]
(B) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Section 29-A(5)—Enhancement of rent—Only one application is permissible for. [Para 8]
(C) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ jurisdiction—Enhancement of rent—Writ Court is entitled to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. [Para 10]
(D) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Section 29-A(3)—Protection of—Benefit of exemption clause under the Act may be waived by the landlord—If landlord can waive it then the writ Court can also direct that the Act shall not apply while enhancing the rent for more than Rs. 2,000/- p.m. [Para 10]
Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—In this writ petition, interpretation of Section 29-A (5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is involved. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (5) of Section 29 A are quoted below:
“29-A. Protection against eviction to certain Classes of tenants of land on which building exists :
xxx xxx xxx
(2) This section applies only to land let out, either before or after the commencement of this section, where the tenant, with the landlord’s consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in execution thereof.
(3) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this section, the provisions of Section 20 shall apply in relation to any land referred to in sub-section (2) as they apply in relation to any building.
xxx xxx xxx
(5) The District Magistrate on the application of the landlord or the tenant determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land, and such rent shall be payable, except as provided in sub-section (6) from the date of expiration of the term for which the land was let or from the commencement of this section, whichever is later.
xxx xxx xxx”
2. This is tenants’ writ petition. Tribhuwan Nath, original landlord, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 2 and 3 let out open piece of land to Vishwa Nath Tandon, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners for 10 years through lease deed executed on 29.3.1971. In the deed it was also provided that the rent for the first five years will be at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month and for the next 5 years at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. Tenant was permitted to make constructions over the land in dispute. Lease deed expired in March, 1981, however, tenants continued to occupy the premises in dispute and landlord accepted rent even after expiry of Agreement of lease. It is alleged that amongst the tenants-petitioners partition took place in respect of tenanted property. However, such partition is not binding upon the landlord and all the tenants continued to be joint tenants, jointly liable to the landlord. After the death of original tenant, father of the petitioners, the petitioners inherited the tenancy jointly vide Harish Tandon v. A.D.J., AIR 1995 SC 676.
3. Landlords-respondents 2 and 3 filed application under Section 29-A (5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for determination of rent. The application was filed on 8.7.1991 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Fatehgarh district Farrukhabad and was registered as Case No. 42 of 1991.
4. According to the landlord area of the land in dispute is 1003.4 sq. meter. The tenants disputed the correctness of this assertion and stated that the area was only 650 sq. meter. However, Rent Control and Eviction Officer in its judgement dated 11.6.1992 found the area to be 1003.4 sq. meter. The said finding being a finding of fact is confirmed.
5. Tenants had stated that after expiry of agreement of lease in March, 1981 rent was enhanced and at the time of filing the application they were paying Rs. 400/- per month as rent. This version was found incorrect by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The said finding is also a finding of fact hence it is affirmed.
6. In respect of market value of the land, landlords stated that circle rate was Rs. 950/- per sq. meter, hence the market value of the property was Rs. 10,00,000/-in round figure. However, Rent Control and Eviction Officer through impugned order held that market value was Rs. 9.5 lacs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer took the area of the land to be 1000 sq. meter in round figure and multiplied the same by the circle rate of Rs. 950/- per sq.meter. Rent Control and Eviction Officer therefore determined the rent to be Rs. 95,000/- per year and directed payment of the same with effect from 8.7.1991, the date on which application was filed. Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the contention of the landlord that enhanced rent shall be payable fro
