TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixed as Rs.150/- per month under Section 16(9) of the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (`Act' for short) in the year 1985. The respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act in the year 1998, on the ground that they required the premises for their own use. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the petition for eviction and that was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. While admitting the said writ petition filed by the landlords, a learned Single Judge of the Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. 5. In this case, the landlord filed an eviction petition seeking possession on the ground that they bona fide required the suit premises for their own use. The said request was rejected both by the Prescribed Authority and by the Appellate Authority. The landlord therefore approached the High Court challenging the said rejection by filing a writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority and for grant of an order of eviction. There was no prayer for a direction for payment of any rent or for payment of any increased rent. When the grievance in the writ petition was only in regard to refusal of an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased reasonably, having regard to the fact that the interim direction is purely a temporary arrangement during the pendency of he writ petition, it is possible that this Court might have refused to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Every wrong or doubtful exercise of jurisdiction does not call for grant of special leave, particularly if the order has not resulted in any injustice. In fact, in several cases, this Court has set aside the similar interim directions for payment of excessive rents. 8. We should however note the distinction between cases where a writ petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction and seeking stay of execution thereof, and cases where a writ petition is filed by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of eviction. High Court should desist from doing so. 9. To sum up, in writ petitions by landlord against rejection of eviction petitions, there is no scope for issue of any interim direction to the tenant to pay higher rent. But in writ petitions by tenants against grant of eviction, the High Court may, as a condition of stay, direct the tenant to pay higher rent during the pendency of the writ petition. This again is subject to two limitations. First, the condition should be reasonable. Second, there should not be any bar in the respective State rent control legislation in regard to such increase in rent. Be that as it may. 10. The appeal is allowed and the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the High Court directing the tenant to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
