AJAI AGRAWAL AND ORS. versus HAR GOVIND PRASAD SINGHAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 08-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

AJA! AGRA WAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
HAR GOVIND PRASAD SING HAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 2005 
[ASH OK BHAN AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
,, 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, J972-Sections 6, J6 (IO) and 20(4)_.:._Tenancy-Jmprovement C 
in the tenanted premises-By tenant-Enhancement of rent by landiord to Rs. 
JOO per month-Notice by landlord demanding rent in view of periodical 
enhancement to Rs. 200 and 400-Arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. JOO paid 
by the tenant-Suit demanding arrears at the rate of Rs. 200 and Rs. 400 and 
eviction-No documentary evidence proving periodical enhancement-Courts D 
below relying on uncorroborated evidence of landlord decreed the suit-On 
appeal, held : Eviction not justified-Reliance on uncorroborated evidence 
of landlord alone regarding periodical enhancement of rent unreasonable-
Jn absence of evidence regarding periodical enhancement, tenant's case of 
enhancement at the rate of Rs. I 00 accepted-Hence in view of arrears 
having been paid at the rate of Rs. JOO, tenant entitled to protection of E 
Section 20(4)-Landlord having served notice for enhancement of rent after 
the improvement in the premises, enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs. 200 
not unreasonable. 
Father of the appellants was granted tenancy of the premises in question 
by respondent-landlord. The request of tenant to renovate the premises was F 
not agreed to by the landlord and he asked the tenant to get it repaired. 
Landlord enhanced the rent to Rs. 100 per month in view of improvement of 
the premises. As per the tenant, he could not repair the same till 1989, and 
therefore the landlord had agreed to receive the rent at the rate of Rs. 75 per 
month instead of Rs. 100. However, after the renovation, the tenants paid the G 
rent at the rate of Rs.I 00. 
Landlords gave notice demanding rent since October, 1988. It demanded 
rent at the rate of Rs. 200 per month from April 1989 and from January 1990 
at the rate of Rs. 400 per month. Tenants denied such enhancement. They 
tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100, but the same was refused H 
21 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A by the landlord. Landlords filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the 
rate of Rs.200 from February 1989 and at the rate of Rs.400 from January 
1990 and for eviction of the tenant. Trial Court decreed the suit. The Revision 
Petition of the tenant was dismissed. by Appellate Court. In Writ Petition, 
tenants contended that in absence of any written agreement, the provisions of 
B Section 16(10) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 did not provide for enhancement of rent by an oral 
agreement; that the alleged agreement to enhance the rents periodically by 
the landlord was not made out from the materials on record; and that the 
Courts below had erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of the 
landlord. Single Judge of the High Court affirmed the findings of the courts 
C below, holding that notwithstanding deposit of arrears at the rate of Rs.JOO, 
by the tenants were not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The 
Review Petition against the order of Single Judge was also dismissed. Hence 
the present appeals. Appellants, pursuant to interim direction of this Court 
had deposited monthly rents in favour of the landlord at the rate of Rs.400 
D permonth. 
· Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: J. The reliance placed by the courts below on the uncorroborated 
evidence of the landlord alone, in arriving at a conclusion that the parties 
had, in fact, agreed to periodical enhancement of the monthly rent for the 
E shop room in question is unreasonable. There is no other evidence of the 
alleged agreement between the parties, much less written agreement. 
Therefore, It cannot be said that the presumptive rent Indicated In Section 
16(10) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972 contemplated fixation of such rent subject to any 
F agreement In writing or to any subsequent determination of the standard rent 
after formal Inquiry under Section 9, which has been correctly held by the 
High Court not to be applicable to the facts or the Instant case. 
128-F; 26-G-H; 27-AI 
2. In the absence of any proper evidence regarding the purported 
G agreement for perlodlcal enhancement of the rents, It becomes difficult to 
accept the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.