MOHAMMAD AHMAD & ANR. versus ATMA RAM CHAUHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 13-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 822 
MOHAMMAD AHMAD & ANR. 
v. 
ATMA RAM CHAUHAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4422 of 2011) 
MAY 13, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
c 
Interim order - Writ petition before High Court arising out 
of order of eviction of tenants - Orders by Single Judge 
enhancing the monthly rent while granting stay of 
dispossession of tenants, as an interim measure - HELD: 
Enhancement in rent will not ipso facto be deemed to be 
D unreasonable and exorbitant unless the tenant is able to give 
cogent reasons for the same - In the instant case, in the 
absence of any valuation report, the assessment and the 
judgment of the Single Judge, after taking into account the 
yardsticks and the contentions of bot/. fhe parties appears to 
E be absolutely correct - In order to minimize landlord-tenant 
litigation, guidelines and norms enumerated - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Articles 226, 132 and 142 - Interim order. 
Two shops each admeasuring 12'x1 O', both 
F equivalent to 240 sq. ft. belonging to landlords-
respondents nos. 1 to 3 and under tenancy of the 
appellants, were released by the appellate authority in the 
appeal arising out of the application u/s 21(1)(a) of the 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
G Eviction) Act, 1972. The shops were fetching a monthly 
rent of Rs.40/- and Rs.20/- (a total of Rs.60/-). In the writ 
petition filed by the tenants, the Single Judge of the High 
Court, by order dated 14.9.2005, granted stay of their 
dispossession enhancing the monthly rent to Rs.600/-. 
H 
822 
MOHAMMAD AHMAD & ANR. v. ATMA RAM 
823 
CHAUHAN & ORS. 
Since the writ petition remained pending, the Single A 
Judge after hearing both the parties, by order dated 
13.2.2007, enhanced the rent of both the shops to 
Rs.2100/- per month, as an interim measure. 
On the strength of some unreported decisions, it was 
B 
contended for the tenants-appellants that the practice of 
enhancement of rent during the pendency of writ 
petitions under Articles 226/227 and that too without any 
valuation report, was deprecated by the Supreme Court. 
1 It was further contended that the monthly rent having c 
been enhanced to Rs.600/- only on 14.9.2005, no case 
was made out for further enhancement to Rs.2100/- by 
order dated 13.2.2007 within a period of two years. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. In the case in hand it is clearly reflected that 
respondents-landlords made an offer to the appellants/ 
tenants which they agreed, and only thereafter the rent 
was enhanced from Rs. 600/- per month to Rs. 2100/- per 
month, for both the shops. Thus, the ratio of the 
E 
judgments cited on behalf of the appellants has no 
application to the facts of the case. [para 15] [830-E-F] 
' 
2.1. The rent as has been fixed by the Single Judge 
for the two shops, having total area of 240 sq. ft., to Rs. 
F 
2100/- per month is not only reasonable but would be just 
and proper. Any enhancement in rent will not ipso facto 
be deemed to be unreasonable and exorbitant, unless 
the party aggrieved is able to give cogent reasons for the 
same. [para 17] [831-D-E] 
G 
Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. 
Ltd. 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 843 = (2005)1 SCC 705 - relied 
on. 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2. No doubt, it is true that the Single Judge has 
applied his own yardstick in working out the rent but only 
after both parties' contentions were taken into account 
and the said yardstick appears to be absolutely correct 
and perfect method of working out the current market 
B rental of the premises. Even though no valuation report 
was taken into consideration, as there was none, but the 
assessment and judgment of the Single Judge cannot be 
disallowed, even if detailed reasons have not been 
assigned by the Single Judge for enhancing the rent 
C because the ultimate conclusion arrived at by him does 
not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity. [para 
18-19] [832-E-H] 
3.ln the considered view of the Court, majority of 
o these cases are filed because landlords do not get 
reasonable rent akin to market rent, then on one ground 
or the other litigation is initiated. In order to minimise 
landlord-tenant litigation, the following guidelines and 
norms are laid down: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(i) The tenant must enhance the rent according to the 
terms of the agreement or at least by ten percent, 
after every three years and enhanced rent shou

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