Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Case decision for enhancement of rent of a house property situated in urban area

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 07 November 2011 This query is : Resolved 
Sir,
please send case laws and decision thereon in respect of enhancement of rent of a house property situated in urban area. i have a copy of Civil Appeal No. 4422 of 2011 decided in supreme court on 13 may 2011, but i want more decisions related to aforesaid case.
prabhakar singh (Expert) 07 November 2011
You already have the judgement which is greater than 100 of other judgments,then why are you looking for other judgments.
Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 07 November 2011
but sir i want details of previous best judgement
ajay sethi (Expert) 07 November 2011
In Baburao Shantaram More vs. Bombay Housing Board & Anr.

[(1954) SCR 572 : AIR 1954 SC 153], this Court has held:

"It is not to be expected that the Government or local authority or the Board would be actuated by any profit-making motive so as to unduly enhance the rents or eject the tenants from their respective properties as private landlords are or are likely to be. Therefore, the tenants of the Government or local authority or the Board are not in need of such protection as the tenants of private landlords are and this circumstance is a cogent basis for differentiation. The two classes of tenants are not by force of circumstances placed on an equal footing and the tenants of the Government or local authority or the Board cannot, therefore, complain of any denial of equality before the law or of equal protection of the law. " M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay [(1989) 3 SCC 293] is another instance where the Court placed faith on the public sector stating:

"The field of letting and eviction of tenants is normally governed by the Rent Act. The Port Trust is statutorily exempted from the operation of the Rent Act on the basis of its public/governmental character. The legislative assumption or expectation as noted in the observations of Chagla, C.J. in Rampratap Jaidayal case cannot make such conduct a matter of contract pure and simple. These corporations must act in accordance with certain constitutional conscience and whether they have so acted, must be discernible from the conduct of such corporations. In this connection, reference may be made on the observations of this Court in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India reiterated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India wherein at p. 148 this Court observed: (SCC p. 480, para 55) "It is dangerous to exonerate corporations from the need to have constitutional con- science; and so, that interpretation, language permitting, which makes governmental agencies, whatever their mien, amenable to constitutional limitations must be adopted by the court as against the alternative of permitting them to flourish as an imperium in imperio." Therefore, Mr Chinai was right in contending that every action/activity of the Bombay Port Trust which constituted "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution, in respect of any right conferred or privilege granted by any statute is subject to Article 14 and must be reasonable and taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest.'" {See also Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai & Anr. [(2004) 3 SCC 214]; and Municipal Corpn., Chandigarh & Ors. vs. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 109].} Even the criterion underlying the policy is required to be changed by way of modification or variation in the standard of rent, object whereof should have been achieved only by making suitable amendments in the Act itself. The Administrator could not have tinkered with the provisions of the Act.
ajay sethi (Expert) 07 November 2011
www.indiankanoon.org/doc/74964/



Sri Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the landlord has submitted that the concerned authority enhancing the rent must consider the value of property and land appurtenant which are in tenancy, District Magistrate circle rates, engineer/valuer's report, affidavit etc. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the decision taken by the trial court was in accordance with the statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the following case laws:

1. State of U.P. and Ors. v. VII Additional District Judge and Ors. ;

2. State of U.P. through District Commandant, Home Guard. Sitapur v. Roop Kishore Tandon and Ors. 1987 (2) ARC 359;

3. Punjab and Sindh Bank v. VIIth A.D.J. Bulandshahar and Ors. 2000 (2) ARC 431 : 2000 (4) AWC 2772;

4. Indian Overseas Bank v. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and Ors. 2002 (1) ARC 586 : 2002 (3) AWC 1857;

5. Har Piari Devi Gupta (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2002 (2) ARC 271 : 2002 (3) AWC 2379; and

6. Institute of Co-operative Management 224 Rajpur Road, Dehradun v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2004 (3) ARC 595 (Utt HC).
Rajeev Kumar (Expert) 13 November 2011
Mr.sethi has well replied with case references and i do agree


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :