IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5883 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.1401 of 2007)

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)

O R D E R

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

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          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                                O R D E R  

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)