Sunil Kumar Vs.
Surendra Kumar Agarwal & Ors.  INSC 1653 (26 September 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5883 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.1401 of
2007) Sunil Kumar ... APPELLANT VS.
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
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).
[R. V. Raveendran]
[Lokeshwar Singh Panta]
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 judgments 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.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
R.V. RAVEENDRAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA For Petitioner(s) Mr.
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,
Mr. Avinash Kumar
Dr. Madan Sharma, dv.
Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta,
Ms. Asha Upadhyay,
Mr. R.D. Upadhyay,
UPON hearing counsel
the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.
The appeals are
allowed in terms of the signed order.