Allahabad High Court
Anoop Shankar Vashney And Another vs Ramesh Chand on 30 May, 2024
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99494
Court No. - 50
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6112 of 2024
Petitioner :- Anoop Shankar Vashney And Another
Respondent :- Ramesh Chand
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Ravindra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Sudeep Harkauli
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submitted that petitioners-defendants are tenant of the shop in question for which, they are paying Rent @ 6,500/- per month. He next submitted that respondent-plaintiff has filed application under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021, registered as Case No. 248 of 2023 for enhancement of rent, which was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2023 fixing the rent @ Rs. 25,000/- per month. He next submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2023, petitioners-defendants filed Rent Appeal No. 361 of 2023 before the Additional District Judge,/Rent Authority, Court No. 13, Agra, which was partly allowed vide order dated 29.02.2024, fixing the rent @ Rs. 56.13 per sq. feet totaling to Rs. 23,956/- per month. He firmly submitted that shops in the same area are rented out @ Rs. 9,000/- per month and rent receipt dated 25.01.2023 of one of the shops of the same area is also annexed as Annexure VIII to this petition. He also submitted that once, rent of shops in the same area is Rs. 9,000/-, there is no occasion for fixing the rent @ Rs. 23,956/-, therefore, impugned orders are bad and liable to be set aside.
3. Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and submitted that first of all, document so relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not part of record either before the rent authority or rent tribunal, therefore, in light of judgment and order of this Court dated 16.08.2018 passed in Matter Under Article 227 No. 5785 of 2018 (Aftab Alam Vs. Maulana Sarfaraz), same cannot be taken into consideration under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
4. He next submitted that rent authority has enhanced the rent considering the market rate under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Appellate authority has re-appreciated this fact about the market rate so produced by the respondent-plaintiff, which has also not been controverted by the petitioners-defendants and taking the same into consideration, had decided the rent @ Rs. 56.13 per sq. feet totaling to Rs. 23,956/- per month, therefore, there is no illegality in the in the impugned orders and petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Being confronted by the Court, Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants could not dispute the fact that rent receipt dated 25.01.2023 is not the part of record either before rent authority or rent tribunal. He also could not dispute this fact that appellate authority while deciding the rent has considered the uncontroverted document produced by the respondent-plaintiff about the market rate of rent.
6. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, perused the record as well as the judgment relied upon.
7. It is undisputed that rent receipt dated 25.01.2023 is not part of record either before rent authority or rent tribunal, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that once the document so relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants is not part of record either before the rent authority or rent tribunal, the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by this Court in the matter of Aftab Alam(Supra).
8. I have also considered the second submission. It is undisputed that respondent-plaintiff has produced the document relating to market rate of rent of the area, which is not controverted by the petitioners-defendants and relying upon the same, appellate authority has fixed the rent @ Rs. 56.13 per sq. feet totaling to Rs. 23,956/- per month in light of Section 10(2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Therefore I found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 07.08.2023 & 29.02.2024.
9. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
ADY
