LexNIYAS AHMAD KHAN versus MAHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2008] 7 S.C.R. 744 NIYAS AHMAD KHAN \I. MAHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3372 of 2008) MAY 5, 2008 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction - Petition seeking eviction - On the ground of bonafide requirement - Rejection of - Writ C petition against r(f/ection - High Court by interim order increasing the rent drastically- On appeal, held: The direction of the High Court is ·oppressive and unreasonable - In a writ petition by landlord, against rejection of eviction, there is no scope for issue of any interim direction to the tenant to pay D higher rent - The writ petition being against order of refusal t~_.~:e,nt ~viction on bonafide ground and there being no . prayer regarding rent, High Court was not right in increasing : the rent - The statute governing the premises, since specifically provided for fixation and increase. of rent, High E Court could not have increased the rent ignoring those provisions - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 :_ s. 21 (1) (a) - Interlocutory Order - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 227. F G H Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226 and 227 - Power of Judicial review and superintendence - Scope of - Held. High Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review and superintendence, ignoring or violating the specific prov1s1ons of a statute. Article 136 - Special Leave Pet1t1on - Dismissal of, in limine - Held Dismissal of Special Leave Petlf1on in limine does not preclude Supreme Court from exammmg the same issue in other cases - Practice and Procedure. Respondent-landlord filed a petition u/s 21 (1) (a) c 744 •• ,_ NIYAS AHMAD KHAN v. MAHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH 7-45 KHAN &ANR. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent A and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bonaflde. requirement. Prescribed Authority as well as ·appellate Authority dismissed the eviction petition. Landlord .filed writ petition questioning the order of the Authorities. High Court by an interim order increased the rent from B Rs.150/-per month to Rs. 12,050/- per month by as~essing each portion of the premises separately. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1 The premises. in question is governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Act contains provisions relating to fixation of standard rp rent and for increase in rent. Where the statute specifically D provides for fixation of rent and increase in rent, it is impermissible for the High Court to ignore those provisions and direct the tenant to pay an arbitrarily assessed rent. Neither the power of judicial review under Article 226 nor the power of superintendence under Article E 227, can be exercised in a manner ignoring or violating the specific provisions of a statute. While purporting to exercise the power under Article 227 to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority, the High Court should not itself cross the limits of its authority. [Para 4) [748-G-H; 749-A) F 1.2 In the writ petition, 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 G section 21 (1 )(a) of the Act, there is no justification for u directing payment of a higher rent either pending __. consideration of the writ petition or otherwise. [Para 5) [749-C-D] 1.3 Even assuming that the High Court has pow~r to H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 7 S.C.R. A increase the rent, High Court could not assess the rent at the amount which is more than 48 times, the rent earlier determined, in the absence of any evidence - either oral or documentary or by way of affidavit, Single Judge did not consider any of the relevant circumstances like the B market value of the building on the date of letting, prevailing rentals in the locality as on the date of letting, the size or situation or amenities, age of construction, latest assessment of the building or other circumstances. Further, when a premises consisting of several rooms, c verandahs, kitchen, terrace, bathrooms, latrines, is let out as a single unit, the question of assessing the rent with reference to each room or portion of such premises separately does not arise.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.