SUDHANSHU SINGH Vs. MONIKA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Charan Sharma, J. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 4th August,2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 2, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 30/2007. Prayer has also been made for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing this order and petitioner be permitted to continue to deposit Rs. 60/-p. m. of the accommodation under his tenancy till the disposal of the appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire facts of the case. A perusal of the record shows that the landlady Smt. Monika Dwivedi filed a P. A. Case No. 232/1998, Smt. Monika Dwivedi Vs Raj Pal Singh under setion 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for getting the property vacated for her personal need. This application was allowed by the Judgment and order dated 16th May,2007 by the Prescribed Authority. Against this judgment and order dated 16th May, 2007 of the Prescribed Authority, a rent appeal No. 30/200, Raj Pal Vs Monika Dwivedi was instituted in the court of District Judge, Lucknow and on 4th December, 2007, an order was passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow on the stay application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the order was passed to the effect that the eviction of the tenant is essential to be stayed provided the tenant deposits Rs. 1500/-as rent and damages for a month. Later on an application was moved for recall of the order and this application for recall of the order was disposed of by the order dated 4th August, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow and it was clarified by this order that the appellant shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- p. m. instead of paying Rs. 60/-p. m.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY, the property in dispute is situated at Jopling Road, Lucknow and it is also an undisputed fact that Jopling Road, Hazratganj is a prime location of the city of Lucknow. It is also material to mention that how much accommodations are in the possession of the petitioner as tenants. That the property in dispute consists of three rooms, courtyard and open land and the appellate court has only fixed a sum of Rs. 1500/- p. m. as damages. Having taken into account the extent and considering the location of the property in dispute, this rent of Rs. 1500/-p. m. is not excessive rather it is meagre. I would not like to make any comment as it may be treated adverse to the petitioner that the appellate court is authorized to enhance further rent. This judgment is of no help to the petitioner. There are numerous other judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect that the rent can be enhanced.