Enhancement of rent
rahul jain
(Querist) 09 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
is their are any provisions under u.p rent control act on which a landlord can file a suit for the enhancement of rent equal to the rate of land or their are any other grounds on which a landord may file a suit foe rent enhancement.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 September 2011
If there is no rent agreement then , the District
Magistrate shall, on an application being made in that behalf, determine the standard rent.
In determining the standard rent, the District Magistrate may consider:
The respective market value of the building and if its site immediately before the date of commencement of
this Act or the date of letting, whichever is later (called the said date).
The cost of construction, maintenance and repairs of the building.
The prevailing rates for similar buildings in the locality immediately before the said date.
The amenities provided in the building,
The latest assessment, if any, of the building.
Any other relevant fact, which appears in the circumstances of the case to be material.
The District Magistrate shall ordinarily consider 10% p.a. on the market value of the building on the said
date to be the annual standard rent.”
Application can also be moved before rent control court.
Guest
(Expert) 09 September 2011
if agreement has such provisions the suit will be based on the conditions. if not, the procedure as expert said will follow.
Shailesh Kr. Shah
(Expert) 09 September 2011
Mr. Prabhakar singh gives answered very elaborately of your query.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 September 2011
I humbly disagree with the experts about the procedure told by them. Refer to the following judgment:
Allahabad High Court
Roshan Lal Sehgal Son Of Late Shri ... vs Sri Yupender Kumar Kalra Son Of Sri ... on 3 December, 2007
Author: S Khan
Bench: S Khan
JUDGMENT
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord-petitioner against tenant respondent on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 117 of 1994. Property in dispute is a shop, situate at Abu Lane, Meerut, rent of which is Rs. 1150/- per month. In the release application, it was stated that even though petitioner was aged about 80 years but he was unemployed and he intended to start retail business from the shop in dispute. Release application was rejected by Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Meerut on 24.09.1998. The said order was affirmed in P.A. Appeal No. 406 of 1998, which was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No. 3, Meerut on 22.09.2006, hence this writ petition.
2. During pendency of writ petition, original petitioner landlord died, hence his need came to an end. Additional need of no other person was further set up in the release application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has also filed substitution application on behalf of the son of the original petitioner, which has been allowed, has categorically stated that need did not survive after the death of original petitioner landlord.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
3. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC 64 and H.M. Kichlu v. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Same principle may be applied to the instant case also. However, learned Counsel for the tenant respondent has vehemently argued that while dismissing writ petition of landlord, rent cannot be enhanced.
4. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority of M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 602, where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court has further held that frozen rents are giving rise to lawlessness and landlords out of frustration are approaching muscle man to get the premises vacated and courts of law are becoming redundant in this sphere. Under U.P. Rent Control Act, there is no provision of enhancement of rent after October, 1972 [Except where landlord is public charitable or public religious institution (Section 9-A) or government is tenant (Section 21(8)]. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I have also placed reliance upon the authority of Supreme Court "Shangrila Food Products
Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India", paragraph-11 of which is quoted below:
It is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief.
Thereafter in Para-8 of the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I held as under:
Rent Control Act confers a reasonable advantage upon the tenant of protection against arbitrary eviction. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bonafide need of the landlord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alteration etc. This advantage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equitable. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of S.F.P. v. L.I.C. . has laid down that while granting relief to a party the writ court can very well ask the said party to shed the unfair advantage which it gained under the impugned order. By slightly extending the said doctrine it may safely be held that while granting the reasonable advantage to the tenant conferred upon him by the Rent Control Act the tenant may be asked to shed the unreasonable arbitrary advantage conferred upon him by the said Rent Control Act. The writ court therefore while granting or maintaining the relief against arbitrary ejectment to the tenant can very well ask the tenant to shed the un-reasonable benefit of the Rent Control Act granted to him in the form of immunity against enhancement of rent, however inadequate the rent might be. Tenant will have to shed the undue advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Act to barter his protection from arbitrary eviction provided for by the said Act.
5. Thereafter in H.M. Kitchlu v. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C. 652, I have held that the same principle of enhancement of rent to a reasonable extent may be made applicable while dismissing the writ petition of the landlord for the reason that by doing so writ court approves the protection of Rent Control Act granted to the tenant by the courts below.
6. Learned Counsel for the tenant has cited an interim order of the Supreme Court dated 08.01.2007 in S.L.P. No. 21518 of 2006 (Ishrat Alia v. Shyma Bihari Lal. In a landlord's writ petition, an Hon'ble Judge of this Court by interim order had enhanced rent. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the said order by the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2007 on the ground that through interim order passed in a writ petition of the landlord, rent could not be enhanced.
7. However, Supreme Court did not say that while deciding the writ petition finally, rent could not be enhanced.
8. Learned Counsel for the tenant has further argued that the only scope of enhancement of rent for a writ court is while granting stay order against eviction to the tenant in a pending writ petition filed by the tenant against eviction order passed by the courts below as held by Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors . I do not agree with this contention. Even apart from this contingency while finally granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
9. A Learned Counsel for the landlord has shown current circle rate of the area in question (Abu Lane, Meerut) circulated by the Collector under Stamp Act/Rules. According to the said circle rates, market value of the commercial buildings of Abu Lane is Rs. 33,000/- per sq. meter and rent is shown to be Rs. 2,007- per sq. meter per month.
10. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However it is directed that w.e.f. December, 2007, onwards, tenant shall pay rent to the landlord respondent @ Rs. 5,000/- inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be payable by the tenant to the landlord over and above Rs. 5000/- per month.
11. However, it is further directed that in spite of rent having been enhanced to more than Rs. 2000/- per month, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 shall continue to apply to the building in dispute. Supreme Court in "Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam" has held that benefit of clause of exemption from operation of Rent Control Act can be waived by the landlord. Similarly, the Court while enhancing the rent to more than Rs. 2,000/- per month can waive the application of exemption clause provided under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act., whereunder the Act does not apply to a building, rent of which is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 September 2011
The judgment opens remarkably"This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord-petitioner against tenant respondent on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A"
6. Learned Counsel for the tenant has cited an interim order of the Supreme Court dated 08.01.2007 in S.L.P. No. 21518 of 2006 (Ishrat Alia v. Shyma Bihari Lal. In a landlord's writ petition, an Hon'ble Judge of this Court by interim order had enhanced rent. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the said order by the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2007 on the ground that through interim order passed in a writ petition of the landlord, rent could not be enhanced.
7. However, Supreme Court did not say that while deciding the writ petition finally, rent could not be enhanced.
Para 7 and 8 of this judgement has to be understood properly to know those peculiar circumstances in which the High Court in a proceeding of eviction coming before it enhanced the rent,even if it is so i do not see a writ to enhance rent as per market rate can directly be filed in High Court.If so happens The High court will get tired deciding such enhancement cases as all the land lord will que up for this relief thinking they save time of litigation at lower level.It was a passing by relief by the High Court to land lord as his eviction relief was turned down.
The hon'ble judge took such a view because of his earlier judgment from which did not desired to deviate as he said"3. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC 64 and H.M. Kichlu v. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Same principle may be applied to the instant case also. However, learned Counsel for the tenant respondent has vehemently argued that while dismissing writ petition of landlord, rent cannot be enhanced.
4. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority of M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 602, where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court has further held that frozen rents are giving rise to lawlessness and landlords out of frustration are approaching muscle man to get the premises vacated and courts of law are becoming redundant in this sphere. Under U.P. Rent Control Act, there is no provision of enhancement of rent after October, 1972 [Except where landlord is public charitable or public religious institution (Section 9-A) or government is tenant (Section 21(8)]. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I have also placed reliance upon the authority of Supreme Court "Shangrila Food Products
"
girish shringi
(Expert) 11 September 2011
Mr. Singh is perfect in the case.
