Sunil Kumar vs Surendra Kumar Agarwal & Ors
- CitationAIRONLINE 2008 SC 309
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot, by an interim order, direct a tenant to pay rent fixed arbitrarily without reference to the statutory provisions of the applicable Rent Act; such an order lacks any basis in the statutory scheme and constitutes an impermissible exercise of interim powers. The court is bound to follow the statutory mechanism for rent determination under the Act that governs the premises, and any rent fixed must have some rational connection to the statutory provisions and cannot represent an arbitrary multiplier increase over the existing rent without reasoning or legal foundation for such increase.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sunil Kumar ... APPELLANT
VS.
Surendra Kumar Agrarwal & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5884 OF 2008 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.9504 OF 2007)
ORDER
Leave granted in both petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
CA NO.5883 OF 2008(Arising out of SLP(C)No.1401 of 2007)
The appellant is a tenant in regard to a shop. The rent was Rs.80/-
per month. The eviction petition filed by the respondent - landlord against
the appellant was rejected on 18.10.2003. However, the Revisional Court
allowed the revision of the landlord and granted eviction on 19.10.2004.
Feeling aggrieved the tenant filed a writ petition before the High Court. 2
In the said writ petition, the High Court has made an interim order
dated 15.12.2006 directing the tenant to pay a rent of Rs.4900/- per month
with effect from December, 2006, with a 10% increase every five years until
further orders under the Act. The High Court also directed that if the tenant
fails to pay the aforesaid rent, he could be evicted from the suit premises.
The High Court has calculated the rent for the shop area as Rs.10/- per sq.ft.
and for the veranda area as Rs.3/- per sq.ft. without any supporting material
and increased the rent payable from Rs.80/- per month to Rs.4900/- per
month.
CA NO.5884 OF 2008 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.9504 OF 2007)
The appellants are the tenants in regard to suit premises on a
monthly rent of Rs.75/-. The landlords filed an application for release of the
said premises. The Prescribed Authority allowed the petition in part by order
dated 5.11.1988. The said order was challenged by the tenants as well as
landlords and the appeals were dismissed on 25.4.1995. Feeling aggrieved
the tenant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by an
interim order dated 26.10.2006, has directed the tenant to pay a rent of
Rs.4850/- per month plus water and electricity charges from October, 2006
(with an increase of 10% every five years till further orders under the Act). In both appeals, the question raised is whether the High Court
could by way of an interim order direct the tenant to pay a rent fixed
arbitrarily without reference to the provisions of the Act. The court has not
assigned any reason for increasing the rent by more than 60 times.
In Niyas Ahmad Khan vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan [2008 (7)
SCC 539], this Court has held that the High Court cannot arbitrarily increase
the rent as has been done in this case. Following the said decision, these
appeals are allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court are set
aside. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way of
the landlord-respondent making appropriate application in regard to non-
payment of rents, or the High Court imposing reasonable conditions as
mentioned in para 9 in Niyas Ahmad Khan (supra).
................................................J [R. V. Raveendran]
................................................J [Lokeshwar Singh Panta] New Delhi;
September 26, 2008.
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1401/2007
(From the judgement and order dated 15/12/2006 in CMWP No. 53584/2004 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
SUNIL KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report ) WITH SLP(C) NO. 9504 of 2007(With office report)
Date: 26/09/2008 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pramod Swarup,Adv.
Ms. Pareena Swarup, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv.
Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv.
Mr. B.D. Jha, Adv.
Mr. S.D. Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Misra, Adv.
Mr. Avinash Kumar Jain, Adv.
Dr. Madan Sharma, dv.
Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(PAWAN KUMAR) (ANAND SINGH) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (signed order is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free