Uttarakhand High Court
Regional Shri Gandhi Ashram & Another ... vs Anil Pandhi And Others on 7 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.204 of 2024
Regional Shri Gandhi Ashram & another ....Petitioners
Versus
Anil Pandhi and others .... Respondents
Present:
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Dated: 07.03.2024
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
By means of present writ petition, petitioners
have sought quashing of impugned order dated
15.10.2022 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Rent
Control Appeal No.33 of 2022 as well as the order dated
07.04.2021 passed by Prescribed Authority/District
Magistrate, Dehradun in case no.2/2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners were tenant in the property in
question since 1950; that, the original owner sold the
property to the respondent/landlord in 1993; that, on
01.02.1996 the respondent/landlord and the
petitioners/tenants entered an agreement (Annexure
No.5) wherein it was agreed that after renovation of
the shop, petitioners/tenants would reenter in the
tenanted premises and the tenancy shall remain the
same; that, the character of the tenancy shall not be
changed rather the old tenancy will continue
uninterruptedly at the same rate of rent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants
would further submit that respondent/landlord filed an
application before the Prescribed Authority/District
Magistrate under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Tent & Eviction) Act, 1972 for
enhancement of monthly rent, which was allowed by the
Prescribed Authority vide judgment/order dated
07.04.2021 thereby fixing the rent @ ` 13,650/- per
month from the date of filing the application i.e.
01.07.2013.
4. He would further submit that against the
judgment/order passed by Prescribed Authority, the
petitioners/tenants as well as the respondent/landlord
filed appeals before the learned District Judge; that,
learned District Judge heard both the appeals and
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/landlord
whereas the appeal filed by the petitioners/tenant was
dismissed and the rate of rent was enhanced to `
18,655/- per month.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants
would submit that as per clause 4 and 5 of the
agreement executed between the parties (Annexure No.5)
there was an understanding that the rent shall remain
the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners would refer
to clauses 4 and 5 of the agreement, which reads as
under:-
Þ4- izFkei{k }kjk lq/kkj] lEo/kZu vkfn ds mijkUr mijksDr nqdku
f}rh;i{k dks okfil feyus ij Hkh nqdku dh fdjks;nkjh iqjkuh gh
pyrh pyh vk;h le>h tk;sxhA f}rh; i{k ;w0ih0 vf/kfu;e 13
o'kZ 1972 ds lEcfU/kr izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr laj{k.k ikus ds iw.kZ
vf/kdkjh gksaxs vkSj jgsaxs vkSj mudks blds vUrxZr izkIr gksxkA
5- mijksDr nqdku f}rh; i{k dks feyus ij nqdku dk fdjk;k
;FkkiwoZ jgsxkAß
6. Learned counsel would further submit that the
plea of the petitioners regarding clause 4 and 5 of
agreement was not at all considered by the Prescribed
Authority and the Appellate Court, therefore, the
impugned judgments are unsustainable in the eyes of
law
7. Perused the record in light of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants
would fairly admit that had this agreement (Annexure
No.5) not been executed between the parties the
Prescribed Authority and the First Appellate Court would
have got the jurisdiction to enhance the rate of rent,
however, when there was an agreement with specific
clause that the rent would remain the same there was no
occasion for the Prescribed Authority and, consequently,
the First Appellate Court to enhance the rate of rent.
9. In the considered view of this Court, there is
only limited question whether by execution of the
agreement (Annexure No.5) the Prescribed Authority and
the First Appellant Court were precluded from entering
into the jurisdiction to enhance the rent.
10. In view of this Court, Clause 4 and 5 of the
agreement (Annexure No.5) does not create any new right
in favour of the petitioners/tenants. Clause 4 and 5 of
Annexure No.5 merely reiterates the existing state of
facts and there was no creation of any new tenancy
whatsoever. However, admittedly, the agreement was
executed between the parties on 01.02.1996 as per which
the petitioners were tenants in the demised property @
50/- per month and there was mention in the agreement
as to for which period this agreement will exist. After
execution of the agreement, the respondent/landlord did
not enhance the rent for about 16 years and it is in 2013
itself that he filed the application for enhancing the rent.
11. The tenanted premises is a commercial
property and the rent of ` 50/- per month is not justified
in the current scenario. As such, the
respondent/landlord was constrained to file the
application for enhancement of rent after a period of
about 16 years from the date of agreement. The
respondent/landlord certainly has a right to enjoy the
fruits of his property. In the considered opinion of the
Court, there is no error in the impugned judgment/order
passed by the First Appellate Court and rate of rent has
been rightly increased to ` 18,655/- per month.
12. In view of the above, there is no merit in the
writ petition. Same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
07.03.2024
Rajni
