Salig Ram vs. Mohammad Matten

ITEM NO.37 Court No.11 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).27296/2010 (From the judgement and order dated 03/08/2010 in WA No.70574/2005,CMA No.93211/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) SALIG RAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS MOHAMMAD MATTEN Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 24/08/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.D.Singh, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S.R. Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. J.P. Nagar,Adv. Mr. D.N. Dubey,Adv. Ms. Namita Choudhary,Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh,Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Pandey,Adv. Mr. Sushant K Yadav,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

In Writ Petition No.70574 of 2005, the High Court of judicature at Allahabad passed an order dated 26.10.2006 directing the petitioner herein who happens to be the tenant in occupation of the disputed premises to pay rent to the landlord @ Rs.3900/- p.m. by the 7th of each succeeding calendar month. The High Court, further directed that the rent so fixed shall be increased by 10% every 5 years till

-2-

further orders "according to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972." The writ petition was eventually dismissed by the High Court by order dated 16.12.2009.

An application for clarification was then made by the landlord and allowed by the High Court in terms of its order dated 03.08.2010 clarifying that the rent of Rs.3900/- fixed by the High Court would continue to remain payable by the tenant and that the landlord shall -be free to seek ejectment of the tenant on that basis. The present special leave petition assails the correctness of the said order.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. We have also been taken through the orders passed by the High Court.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the rent fixed by the High Court in terms of order dated 26.10.2006 was only an interim arrangement which could not remain operative beyond the pendency of the writ petition, and that with the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim arrangement ought to have come to an end automatically. Inasmuch as the High Court has by the order now passed by it directed the rate of rent to continue to Rs.3900/- p.m., it had committed a mistake especially when the said rate is required to be enhanced by 10% every five years. It was also contended that the rent fixed by the High Court was not 'fair rent' having regard to the relevant considerations stipulated under the provisions of the Act.

Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the rent originally payable was Rs.40/- p.m. which was totally inadequate keeping in view the extent of accommodation -the user and the location thereof. The High Court was, therefore justified, argued the learned counsel, in determining the rent @ 3900/- p.m. and directing that it would continue to remain payable by the tenant.

-3-

The order passed by the High Court determining the rate of rent, it is common ground never challenged. All the same the power to fix fair rent is vested with the Rent Controller concerned under the provisions of the Rent Act mentioned earlier. Neither of the parties has applied to the controller for fixation of the fair rent. The proper course for the aggrieved party in that view is to seek fixation of the fair rent in which event the Rent Controller shall determine the fair rent payable by the tenant. The High Court had no doubt taken a broad view of the matter and fixed the rent at Rs.3900/ p.m. but any such determination was in its very nature bound to be tentative and subject to any statutory determination by the Rent Controller. Order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the High Court must therefore be understood only in that spirit.

Such being the case we do not see any reason to interfere with the order under challenge at this distant point of time. All that we need say is that the order passed by the High Court on 26.10.2006 and that passed on 03.08.2010 shall not prevent the petitioner-tenant from filing a suitable petition before the Rent Controller and -

seeking fixation of fair rent in which event the Rent Controller shall examine the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard in the matter to both the parties. Till such time the Rent Controller alters the rate of rent fixed by the High court, the petitioner would continue to pay the rent so determined. We make it clear that the Rent Controller need not be influenced by the observations made by the High Court while fixing fair rent and shall endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible. The SLP is disposed off with the above direction leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

|Court Master | |Court Master |

|(Shashi Sareen) | |(Veena Khera) |