Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
Virendra Kumar Tripathi - Petitioner
Versus
Amit Dua and another - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1199 of 2025
Decided On : 30-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Anil Babu, Ashwaini Mishra
For the Respondent: Manas Bhargava
The absence of a tenancy agreement before the commencement of the Act requires rent disputes to be resolved under Section 10, rather than Section 9.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 - Sections 9 and 10 - Interpretation of rent agreement and determination of rent - Petitioner challenged the orders of the Rent Tribunal and ADM regarding revision of rent after the sale of the property - The court determined that in the absence of a tenancy agreement before the commencement of the Act, rent must be revised under Section 10, considering market rates. (Paras 4-16)
(B) Legal Principle - It was held that rent can only be revised in accordance with Section 9(3) of the Act if there exists a prior tenancy agreement; otherwise, Section 10 applies. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a tenant who continued to occupy the premises after the sale to the respondents, leading to disputes over the revised rent as no new agreement was signed post-sale. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Rent Tribunal's determination that rent was correctly established as per Section 10, given the absence of a pre-existing rental agreement. (Paras 15-16)
Issues: The core issue was whether the orders for rent fixation were valid, considering the non-existence of a rental agreement prior to the Act's commencement. (Para 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The interpretation of the law clarified that the absence of an agreement necessitates adherence to Section 10 of the Act for rent disputes; thus, the authority’s decision had legal grounding. (Paras 10-14)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consent of parties allows admission stage decision. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner details relating to tenancy confusion. (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner argues for following specific revision formula. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. respondents clarify application of section 9 based on agreements. (Para 7) |
| 5. revisions depend on tenancy agreements under section 9. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. absence of agreement leads to market-based rent revisions. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. court affirms tribunal's rent decision as justified. (Para 15) |
| 8. court dismisses petition citing no merit. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anil Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside order dated 08.08.2024 passed by Rent Tribunal/ADJ Court No. 17 Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 34/2024 as well as order dated 31.01.2023 passed by ADM (Judicial) in case no. 1616/2022 and the Execution order dated 17.12.2024 passed by ADM(Judicial)in Execution Case No.7221/2024.
3. As only question of law i.e. interpretation of Section 9 and 10 of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021(hereinafter, referred to as, ‘Act, 2021’) is involved, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is being decided at the admission stage itself without asking for counter affidavit.
4. Brief undisputed facts of the case are that, petitioner was tenant of Sri Purushotam Lal Arora, who was owner of House No. 124/239 C Block Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and petitioner is still running steel furniture shop in that house. Sri Purushotam Lal Arora sold out the aforesaid house to respondents by way of sale deed dated 05.03.2022. After purchasing the house in question, respondents sent notice dated 01.06.2022 to petitioner for execution of rent agreement on revised rent @ Rs. 45,000/- per month, but no rent agreement could be signed. At this stage, respondents filed application under Section 10 of the Act, 2021, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1616 of 2022. The said case was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2023 fixing the rent @ Rs. 25,000/- per month. Against the said order, petitioner preferred Rent Appeal 34 of 2023, which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2024 affirming the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Rent Authority in Misc. Case No. 1616 of 2022. Hence, present petition.
5. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 9 and 10 of the Act, 2021 provides for revision of rent. Section 9 of the Act 2021 clearly provides the formula to revise rent and as per Section 9 (3) of the Act, 2021 where the premises have been let out prior to 15.07.1972, it shall be deemed to have been let out on 15.07.1972 and in case premises has been let out on or after 15.07.1972, the date of revision of rent shall be one year after the date of the commencement of tenancy. It also provides that in case of residential accommodation, the rent shall be increased @ 5 per cent per annum and in case of non residential premises @ 7 per cent per annum.
6. In the present case, the building is non residential, therefore, rent has to be enhanced @ 7 per cent per annum. He next submitted that Rent Authority, while determining the rent in terms of Section 10 of the Act, 2021 has ignored the provision of Section 9 and only considering the market rent in the surrounding area has decided the rent. He next submitted that as per Section 9 (5) of the Act, 2021, in case of tenancy entered into before the commencement of this Act, landlord shall by notice in writing to tenant, demand the enhanced rent and the rent so enhanced as prescribed under Section 9 (3) of the Act, 2021 shall be payable within 30 days of service of notice. He next submitted that while revising the rent under Section 10 the Act, 2021, Section 9 (3) and 9(5) has to be
