The court emphasized the importance of justifying the imposition of rent conditions on tenants during the pendency of a revision and considered relevant circumstances in determining the reasonable amount of rent to be deposited.

Mahendra Dayal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings submitted by them. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, the parties have requested that the writ petition be disposed of at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by Special Judge (P.C.) Act, Lucknow in S.C.C. Revision No.68/2013, whereby the learned court while granting interim order to the petitioner has directed him to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month.

3. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that the opposite party no.2 filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner and the opposite party no.3, which was decreed by the judgment and order dated 27.05.2013. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Lucknow, the petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision before the Court of District Judge, Lucknow, which was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lucknow and while hearing on stay application, the learned revisional court while granting the interim order directed the petitioner to deposit monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is tenant in respect of the premises in dispute since last so many years on monthly rent of Rs.10/- and the learned court below on the basis of several pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the petitioner to deposit the rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month without any justification. He has relied upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. One of such decision is reported in 2005 (2) ARC 936 Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (M/s.) vs. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., in which it has been held that the Court has jurisdiction to impose condition while passing a stay order but such terms and conditions should be reasonable in order to compensate the decree holder for the loss occasioned by him by delay in execution of decree. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in 2008 (1) ARC 254 - Bhoop Singh Bhati vs. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Bulandshshar in which a Bench of this Hon'ble Court has held that the writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. The Bench enhanced the rent from Rs.58/- per month to Rs.1,800/- per month. In the case reported in 2008 (26) LCD Page 1741, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot arbitrarily increase the rent. The Court while fixing the rent should consider the relevant circumstances like the market value of the building. On the date of letting, prevailing rental in the locality on the date of letting, the situation and amenities, age of construction, latest assessment of the building and other circumstances.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house in which the petitioner is residing as tenant is located in a congested area situated in Jauhari Mehtar Ki Garaiya Hussainganj, Lucknow which is an old construction consisting of three rooms, a kitchen and bath room. The petitioner has been paying the rent at the rate of Rs.10/- per month since very beginning and the learned revisional court while granting interim order has directed him to deposit the rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month, which is four hundred times more then the actual rent and this enhancement is without any justification. He further submits that even if the said house is let out to a person, it would not fetch monthly rent of more than Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have on the other hand submitted that the house in question consists of five rooms and is very near to the Vidhan Sabha Marg and in case the building is let out to some one at this point of time, it would fetch at least Rs.8,000/- per month as rent. The revisional court, therefore, was perfectly justified in directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,000/- per mon