SUNITA RANI & ORS. versus SRI CHAND & ORS

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 07-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA, AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- -1' 
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 295 
SUNITA RANI & ORS. 
v. 
SRI CHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6140-6141 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 
[S.H. KAPADIA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
UTTAR 
PRADESH 
URBAN 
BUILDINGS 
A 
B 
(REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 
1972 - Enhancement of rent by High Court after rejecting C 
landlord's petition for eviction of tenants from non-residential 
premises - Held: Judgment of High Court in so far as it 
enhanced the monthly rent of the premises in occupation of 
tenants is clearly unsustainable - There is nothing in the 
judgments refe"ed to by the High Court to suggest that in the 
D 
absence of any provision in the Rent Control Act, High Court 
can assume the authority and the power to enhance manifold 
the contractual I statutory rent payable by tenant, in a writ 
petition filed by landlord against the order rejecting his petition 
for eviction I release - The absence of any provision for E 
enhancement of rent after a cut off date in the Rent Act may 
be an issue for consideration in a different context, but in a 
writ petition filed by the landlord against an order rejecting his 
eviction/release application that cannot be made a ground for 
the High Court to assume the authority to enhance the existing 
F 
rent - It needs to be realized that a tenant against whom the 
eviction/release application filed by landlord has been 
rejected by courts below enjoys all the protections afforded 
by the Rent Act, including the one against enhancement of 
rent - That being the position, it is not open to the High Court, 
G 
to summarily strip the tenant of the statutory protection and 
enhance the existing rent in a completely unguided and 
subjective manner- Order of High Court as far as it enhanced 
the rent set aside. 
295 
H 
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.} S.C.R. 
A 
State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Mis Super Max 
International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (C.A. No.5835 of 2009 decided 
...: -
by Supreme Court on 27th August, 2009) and Niyas 
Ahmed Khan Vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan (2008) 7 
sec 539, relied on 
B 
M. V. Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 
602; Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India 7 Anr. (2008) S 
sec 287, referred to 
A 
Shangrila Food Products Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance 
c Corporation of India, AIR 1996 SC 2410, held inapplicable. 
Case Law Reference: 
2009 () SCR 
relied on 
para 7 
D 
2008(7) sec 539 
relied on 
para 7 
f 
...,__
.,.... 
AIR 1998 SC 602 
referred to 
para 9 
2008(5) sec 2s1 
referred to 
para 9 
E 
AIR 1996 SC 2410 
held inappllcable 
para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
6140-6141 of 2009. 
-"! 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.8.2008 of the High 
'!" 
F Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 
Nos. 19035 and 19036 of 1989. 
~· 
Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellants. 
Vivek Gupta, Chandan Ramamurthi (NP) for the 
G Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
j~-
ORDER 
Application for deletion of the name of Respondent No.4 
.. 
H 
.. ·' 
SUNITA RANI & ORS. v. SRI CHAND & ORS. 
297 
is allowed . 
A 
Leave granted 
1. The respondents (Landlord) instituted proceedings for 
eviction of the appellants (Tenant) from three different premises 
let out to them at different times. One of the proceedings was 
B 
in respect of a go-down let out to the appellants at the monthly 
rental of Rs.50/-. The other was in regard to a shop with the 
111onthly rental of Rs.35/- and the third was for a kothari on the 
monthly rental of Rs.15/-. 
2. The Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Deoband, Saharanpur, 
consolidated the three proceedings and by a common judgment 
and order dated 8 November, 1983 dismissed all the three 
eviction/release petitions filed by the respondents. 
c 
3. Against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority D 
the respondents preferred appeals before the. Additional Judge, 
Saharanpur. The appellate authority allowed the appeal relating 
to the go-down and ordered its release/ eviction of the 
appellants by judgment and order dated 30 May, 1989. By the 
same judgment, however, it rejected the respondents' appeals 
E 
in regard to the other two premises, namely, the shop and the 
kothari. 
4. The respondents filed two writ petitions before the 
Allahabad _High Court challenging the orders rejecting his 
F 
eviction/release petitions in respect of the shop and the kothari. 
The appellants too approached the High Court in a writ petition 
against the judgment of the appellate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.