Allahabad High Court
Sneh Pathology X-Ray Blood Bank ... vs Virendra Kumar Pandey on 18 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No:- 2025:AHC:140978
Court No. 37
Reserved on: 31.7.2025
Delivered on: 18.8.2025
Matters Under Article 227 No.7763 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sneh Pathology X-Ray Blood Bank Component, Ultrasound & C.T. Scan Centre
Respondent :- Virendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Petitioner:- Mr. Atul Dayal, Senior Counsel, Mr. Arvind Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Anoop Trivedi, Senior Counsel, Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Mr. Prajyot Rai
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Prajyot Rai, learned counsel for the respondents
2. Brief facts of the case are that proprietor of Sneh Pathology, Smt. Poonam Tiwari is daughter of Late Jagdamba Prasad and respondent Sri Virendra Kumar Pandey is son of Late Jagdumba Prasad Pandey. One suit No.337 of 2023 for permanent injunction filed by petitioner as well as suit no.217 of 2022 for partition filed by Smt. Anupam Bajpai are pending between the parties before Civil Court at Kanpur Nagar. Respondent filed a case under Section 21 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.16 of 2021) against the petitioner for arrears of rent and eviction. The aforementioned case was registered as Case No.853 of 2023 before rent authority, Kanpur Nagar. Petitioner filed objection in aforementioned Case No.853 of 2023 bringing on record the plaint of two pending civil suit as well as copy of will deed dated 30.12.2021. The rent authority vide order dated 29.10.2024 passed an order eviction of petitioner in aforementioned Case No.853 of 2023. Petitioner challenged the order dated 29.10.2024 through appeal under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 before rent tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Kanpur Nagar. The aforementioned rent appeal was accompanied by stay application dated 12.11.2024. Petitioner deposited Rs. 5,00,000/ towards statutory deposit through tender for compliance of provision contained under Section 35 (1) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. Petitioner filed a matter under Article 227 No.15023 of 2024 before this Court for deciding the stay application and petitioner may not be evicted from the premises in dispute. This Court disposed of the matter vide order dated 29.11.2024 directing the rent tribunal to decide the stay application by 03.12.2024 or in any case within a week thereafter and eviction of petitioner was accordingly protected. The Rent Tribunal/ Appellate Court passed an order on 13.12.2024, admitted the rent appeal and directed the office to allot regular number to appeal. The rent Tribunal/Appellate court by subsequent order dated 16.12.2024 enhanced the rent from Rs.15,000/- per month (at present Rs.19,965/- per month) to Rs.3,00,000/- per month. Petitioner challenged the order dated 16.12.2024 before this Court through matter under Article 227 No.22 of 2025. Respondent also challenged the order dated 16.12.2024. Both the aforementioned petitions were clubbed and heard together. The aforementioned petitions were disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2025 setting aside the orders dated 16.12.2024 and 13.12.2024 and matter was remitted back to appellate Court with direction to pass fresh order for admission in the light of provision contained under Section 35 (1) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 as well as parties were directed to maintain status quo. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 16.05.2025 appellate Court passed an order dated 14.07.2025 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.46,11,439/- within three days. The appellate Court vide subsequent order dated 17.07.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for following relief:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Rent Authority /Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 853/2023 (Virendra Kumar Pandey vs. Sneh Pathology Blood Bank) and also against the order dated 14.07.2025 & order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Rent Tribunal / Learned Additional District Judge Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 192/2024 (Sneh Pathology vs. Virendra Kumar), during the pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court.
And/ Or may pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 25.07.2025 and passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai assisted by Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case as setup in appeal on behalf of the petitioner. He further submitted that there was proper compliance on the part of the appellant regarding deposit in appeal, as such, the appeal cannot be dismissed without considering the case of the petitioner on merit.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai & Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed in appeal, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that due non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 the appeal cannot be decided on merit.
4. Matter requires consideration.
5. Put up this case as fresh on 31.7.2025 at 12:00 P.M.
6. Till the next date of listing, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.10.2024."
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that instant petition be disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions contained under Section 9(2) & 9(3) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, enhancement of rent in case of non-residential premises can be made to the extent of 7 %. He submitted that admitted rate of rent in the present matter was Rs.16500/- per month. He submitted that rent authority has not ascertained the rate of rent under the impugned order 29.10.2024 but the appellate court under order dated 13.12.2024 has mentioned the fact regarding the deposit of more than the statutory amount as required to be deposited under Section 35 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. He further submitted that the petitioner has deposited total amount of Rs.919265/- but the appellate court has adjusted only Rs.500000/- which is illegal. He also submitted that during pendency of the proceeding before the rent authority, the petitioner has deposited Rs.279510/- on 4.10.2023, Rs.19965/- on 1.11.2023 and Rs.19965/- on 1.12.2023 but no determination of rent as provided under Section 9(3) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2023 was made by the rent authority, accordingly, petitioner deposited tender of Rs.500000/- along with appeal filed under Section 35 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 before the rent tribunal against the order passed by the rent authority. He submitted that the appeal was admitted on 13.12.2024 but under the impugned order, the appellate authority has held that the amount which is still due to be deposited in appeal, is Rs.4611439/- and there was no compliance of the provisions contained under Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. He further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has also deposited rent upto July, 2025, amounting to Rs.99825/- in bank account of respondent - Virendra Kumar Pandey, as such, the total deposit comes to Rs.679685/-. He further submitted that there is no provision regarding the calculation of rent at the rate of market value of the property after determining the circle rate of the area under the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 rather under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, there is provision for prevailing market rent, as such, calculation of rent at the rate of market value of the property, is wholly illegal. He further submitted that no exemplar was filed by respondent for determination of the market rent of the property, as such, the order for further deposit of Rs.46,11,439/- as statutory deposit under U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the rent can be enhanced reasonably rather in an exorbitant manner. He submitted that the jurisdiction of appeal cannot become redundant by imposing unreasonable condition upon the appellant so that illegal order of rent authority cannot be assailed in appeal. He further submitted that case law cited by rent tribunal/appellate court, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. He submitted that even on merit the order of rent authority is illegal as civil dispute with regard to validity of will and partition of property is pending before the competent court, as such, the rent authority has got no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. He submitted that the impugned appellate orders dated 14.7.2025/17.7.2025 should be set aside and the petitioner's Appeal No.192 of 2024 should be decided on merit on the basis of deposit already made by the appellant in appeal under Section 35 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the rent tribunal / appellate authority as there was non-compliance of the mandatory condition as provided under Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. He further submitted that there is no illegality in calculation of the rent, taking into consideration the area where the disputed premises is situated as well as the substantial area of the premises in which the petitioner is in possession. He submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the rent authority as well as the rent tribunal. He further submitted that the only indulgence can be granted that petitioner should deposit the entire amount within a specified period as determined by the appellate authority and the deposit can be kept under the supervision of the appellate tribunal. He submitted that no interference is required against the impunged order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Prajyot Rai learned Counsel who are also appearing for the respondent submitted with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties the earlier petition no. 22 of 2025 filed by petitioner and petition no. 294 of 2025 filed by respondent were disposed of vide order dated 16.5.2025 setting aside the orders dated 16.12.2024 & 13.12.2024 passed by appellate Court / tribunal and matter was remitted back before appellate court to pass fresh order for admission & stay. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 16.5.2025 fresh order dated 14.7.2025 has been passed to deposit Rs.46,11,439/- towards due statutory deposit within 3 days but petitioner has not deposited the due statutory deposit as such the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2025 which requires no further interference by this Court inview of the earlier order of this Court dated 16.5.2025.They placed reliance upon the following judgment of this Court in support of their argument: -
i. 2024 SCC OnLine All 2748. Mayank Mittal Vs. District Judge/ Rent Tribunal &others.
ii. Writ - No.3023 of 2024 decided on 5.3.2024 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Shiv Kumari Yadav.
iii. 2024 SCC OnLine All 7703. Satya Narayan and others Vs. state of U.P. and others.
iv. 2014 SCC OnLine All 12958. Nisha Saxena Vs. Ravi Shanker Agrawal.
v. 2014 SCC OnLine All 14684. Anand Agrawal Vs. State of U.P.& Others.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 was decided by the rent authority vide order dated 29.10.2024, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the respondent. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed along with stay application on behalf of the petitioner was admitted but by subsequent order dated 17.7.2025, petitioner's Rent Appeal No.192/2024 has been dismissed. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 35 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, petitioner has deposited/ tendered Rs.500000/- as the 50 % of the due amount under the order of rent authority but the appellate tribunal has held that 50 % of the due amount has not been deposited, as such, the appeal is dismissed.
10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Sections 9 & 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 will be relevant which are as under:-
9. Revision of rent--(1) The revision of rent between the landlord and the tenant shall be in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
(2) Where after the commencement of tenancy, the landlord has entered into an agreement in writing with the tenant prior to the commencement of the work and has incurred expenditure for carrying out improvement, addition or structual alteration in the premises occupied by the tenant, which does not include repairs necessarv to be carried out under Section 15, the landlord may increase the rent of the premises by an amount as agreed to between the landlord and the tenant, and such increase in rent shall become eftective from one month after the completion of such work.
(3) Subiect to any agreement in writing, where the premises hay before the commencement of this Act. the rent thereof shall be liable to be revised for a further period of two years from the commencement of this Act, according to the formula indicated below:
(a) 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;
(b) where the premises have been let out on or after 15-07-1972, the date for revision of rent shall be one year after the date of commencement of tenancy.
The rate of rent payable in above cases shall be liable to be increased at the rate of 5% per annum in case of residential accommodation and 7% per annum in case of non-residential premises, and the amount of increase of rent shall be compounded on an yearly basis. The amount of rent so arrived at shall again be liable to be increased at the aforesaid rates-per annum in similar manner up to the commencement of this Act.
Notwithstanding anything mentioned above, if rent of premises had been revised during continuance of tenancy after 15-07-1972, the formula of revision of rent mentioned above shall be applicable from the date of such revision of rent:
Provided that notwithstanding anything mentioned above, the revised rent payable as per formula indicated in aforesaid provision, shall be payable as below from the date of commencement of this Act:
(i) in the first year, half of the rent so computed; and ii) in the second year, full amount of rent so computed.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 wherein any premises referred to, has been let out to a tenant, the landlord of such premises shall also be entitled for revision of rent in accordance with provisions of clause (3) and the relevant provisions of this Act shall apply to such cases.
(5) In the case of tenancy entered into before the commencement of this Act the landlord shall, by notice in writing to the tenant, enhance the rate of rent as specified under sub-section (3) and the rate of rent so enhanced shall be payable within 30 days of the service of notice. In such event the tenancy agreement shall be deemed to be amended and enhanced rate of rent shall be the rent payable under Section 8:
Provided that if there was no tenancy agreement before the commencemen of this Act, the landlord and the tenant may mutually agree to execute tenany agreement for enhanced rate of rent failing which the rent authority shall determi le the enhanced rent subject to the provisions of Section 10.
(6) No arrears of aforesaid enhanced rent shall be payable or recoverable for the period prior to commencement of this Act.
10. Rent Authority to determine the revised rent in case of dispute (l) In case of any dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding revision of rent, the Rent Authority may, on an application made by the landlord or tenant, determine the revised rent and other charges payable by the tenant and also fix the date from which such revised rent becomes payable.
(2) In determining the rent to be revised, the rent Authority may be guided by the prevailing market rent in the surrounding areas let out on rent.
(3) Once a determination under this section has been made, no application for fresh determination shall lie for a period of one year after the said determination.
(4) The rent authority may determine provisional rent during the proceedings for revision of rent which shall be subject to final determination.
11. The perusal of the operative portion of the order of the rent authority will also be relevant which is as under:-
मण्डलः- कानपुर, जनपदः- कानपुर नगर न्यायालय अपर जिलाधिकारी, (न्यायिक)
वाद संख्या:- 853/2023
वीरेन्द्र कुमार पाण्डेय बनाम स्नेह पैथोलॉजी एक्सरे ब्लड बैंक कम्पोनेन्ट, अल्ट्रासाउण्ड एवं सी०टी० स्कैन सेंटर
कंप्यूटरीकृत वाद संख्या:-D202303410000853
अंतर्गत धाराः- 21 (2), उ० प्र० नगरीय परिसर किरायेदारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 2021
आदेश तिथि:- 29/10/2024
इस प्रकार उपरोक्त विवेचना एवं प्रशिक्षण से सिद्ध होता है कि वादी एवं विपक्षी के मध्य किराएदारी संबंध स्थापित है तथा विपक्षी द्वारा किराया अदा न करना, करार करना एवं अधिनियम की धारा 4 (1), (2) व (3) का उल्लंघन किया गया है। अतः वादी दावा उ०प्र० किरायेदारी परिसर विनियमन अधिनियम 2021 धारा 21 (2) के तहत स्वीकार करते हुए प्रश्नगत किरायेदारी परिसर का बकाया किराया 01.09.2022 से बेदखली आदेश परित होने की दिनांक तक मय जलकर, सीवरकर, व वाद के अन्य खर्चे अन्तरिम किराया / क्षतिपूर्ती बतौर सर्किल रेट व आदेश की तिथि के 30 दिवस उपरांत उ०प्र० नगरीय परिसर विनियमन अधिनियम 2021 की धारा 09 की उपधारा ३ (ख) में उल्लिखित प्राविधानों के अनुसार प्रतिमाह की दर से प्रश्नगत परिसर खाली किये जाने तक क्षतिपूर्ति आरोपित किया जाना न्यायेचित एवं विधि संगत प्रतीत होता है।
आदेश
उपरोक्त विवेचना एवं तथ्यों के आधार पर प्रस्तुत आवेदन प्रस्तुत आवेदन वीरेन्द्र कुमार पाण्डेय पुत्र स्व० जगदम्बा प्रसाद पाण्डेय निवासी म० न० 133/ओ०ए०/10 किदवई नगर कानपुर द्वारा द्वारा प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 27.06.2023 अंर्तगत धारा-21 (2) उ०प्र० नगरीय परिसर विनियमन अधिनियम 2021 स्वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी किरायेदार स्नेह पैथोलॉजी एक्सरे ब्लड बैंक कम्पोनेंट, अल्ट्रासांउड एण्ड सी०टी० स्कैन सेंटर द्वारा प्रो० श्रीमती पूनम तिवारी पत्नी स्व० डा० श्याम बिहारी तिवारी स्थित 133/ओ०ए०/10 किदवई नगर कानपुर नगर को आदेशित किया जाता है कि प्रश्नगत किरायेदारी परिसर 133/ओ०ए०/10 किदवई नगर कानपुर, कानपुर नगर को रिक्त कर आदेश की तिथि से 30 दिन के अंदर भवन स्वामी वीरेन्द्र कुमार पाण्डेय पुत्र स्व० जगदम्बा प्रसाद पाण्डेय को कब्जा प्रदान कर दे। यदि किरायेदार द्वारा 30 दिन के अन्दर भवन स्वामी को कब्जा अन्तरिम किराया व क्षतिपूर्ति प्रदान नहीं की जाती है तो इसी अधिनियम की धारा-36 के अंतर्गत भवन स्वामिनी स्थानीय पुलिस से उक्त परिसर को खाली कराने हेतु स्वतंत्र होगी। प्रत्रावली बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही दाखिल निक्षेप अभिलेखागार हो।
29/10/2024
(चन्द्रशेखर)
किराया प्राधिकारी /अपर जिलाधिकारी (न्यायिक) कानपुर नगर।
11. The perusal of Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 will also be relevant which is as under:-
35. Appeals to Rent Court--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Authority may prefer an appeal along with a certified copy of such order to the Rent Tribunal within the local limits of which the premises is situate 1, within a period of thirty days from the date of that order
Provided that no appeal shall lie unless the appellant pre-deposits fifty percent of the entire payable amount under the impugned order of the rent authority.
(2) Upon filing an appeal under sub-section (1), the Rent Tribunal shall serve notice, along with a copy of memorandum of appeal to the respondent and fix a hearing not later than thirty days from the date of service of notice of appeal on the respondent and the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of sixty days from such date of service.
(3) Where the Rent Tribunal considers it necessary in the interest of arriving at adjust and proper decision, it may allow filing of documents at any stage of the proceedings in appeal:
Provided that no such document shall be allowed more than once during the hearing.
(4) The Rent Tribunal may, in its discretion, pass such interlocutory order during the pendency of the appeal, as it may deem fit.
(5) While deciding the appeal, the Rent Tribunal may, after recording reasons therefor, confirm, set aside or modify the order passed by a Rent Authority.
12. Considering the provisions of Sections 9, 10 & 35(1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 as well as the order of the rent authority in which there is no determination / calculation of the due amount, the liability imposed under the impugned order for depositing Rs.46,11,439/- is wholly illegal and arbitrary approach of the appellate authority. The petitioner has already deposited more than 50 % of the entire payable amount along with tender in appeal under Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 as such, dismissal of appeal by subsequent order, saying that mandatory provisions as provided under Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 has not been complied with, is not sustainable.
13. It is also material to mention that rent can be revised according to the provisions contained under Section 9 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 and there is no provision under the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 for fixation of rent according to circle rate of the area.
14. It is also material to mention that in the garb of statutory deposit in appeal under section- 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, the appellate jurisdiction cannot be make redundant. In the instant matter petitioner has deposited Rs.500000/- towards statutory deposit as such further liability of Rs.46,11,439/- imposed upon the petitioner towards statutory deposit cannot be sustained in the eye of law .It is also material to mention that circle rate in not the condition for revision of rent under U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 as such fixation of amount under the imnpugned order towards statatory deposite in appeal under section- 35 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
15. Considering the aforementioned provisions of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 as well as the deposit already made by petitioner in appeal under Section 35 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, the impugned orders passed by the rent tribunal, holding that petitioner has not deposited Rs.46,11,439/- in compliance of Section 35(1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
16. The instant petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded back before the appellate tribunal to register the Appeal No.192/2024 on its original number. The necessary deposit of 50 % has already been made by the petitioner by depositing Rs.500000/-, as such, there is no need to deposit further amount in appeal towards statutory deposit as provided under section- 35(1) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 however the monthly rent shall be deposited / paid by petitioner regularly as he was depositing / paying to respondent. The appellate tribunal shall decide, the appeal on merit after passing necessary order of admission affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, expeditiously, preferably withing a period of 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law. It is further directed that petitioner shall not be evicted from disputed accommodation till the disposal of the aforementioned appeal.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025
C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
