RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. List revised. Learned Counsel for the tenant- respondent No. 2 is not present. Heard Sri P. K. Jain, learned Counsel for landlord-petitioners.

(2.) LANDLORD petitioners filed SCC Suit No. 220 of 1984 against the tenant-respondent No. 2 Raje Lal Beore J. S. C. C. , Meerut for his eviction. In the plaint it was stated that 10 years period from construction of the building in dispute, which is a shop, had not expired, hence provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute. Suit was filed after termination of the tenancy through notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act J. S. C. C. , Meerut agreeding with the plaintiff-petitioner held that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the shop in dispute. The suit was accordingly decreed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 11-1-1991. Against the said judgment and decree respondent No. 2 tenant Raje Lal filed SCC Revision No. 10 of 1991. Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut through judgment and order dated 17-8-1991 allowed the revision and dismissed the suit for eviction. Hence, this petition by the landlords.

(3.) I have held in Khursheeda v. A. D. J. , Allahabad, 2004 (2) JCLR 452 (All); 2004 (54) ALR 177 : 2004 (13) AIC 42 and H. M. Kitchlu v. A. D. J. , 2004 (57) ALR 485, that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or maintaining the said relief already granted by the Courts below, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Property in dispute is a shop situated in Meerut, which is quite near to Delhi, the National Capital. Rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month which is highly inadequate. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from January, 2006 onward the tenant-respondent No. 2 shall pay rent to the landlord-petitioners @ Rs. 750/- per month.