LexTRUST JAMA MASJID WAQF N0.31 versus M/S. LAKSHMI TALKIES AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F [2010] 10 S.C.R. 330 TRUST JAMA MASJID WAQF N0.31 V. M/S. LAKSHMI TALKIES AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1237 of 2004) AUGUST 16, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Rent Control - UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s.29-A - Lease deed in respect of subject land - Super-structure raised on the land - Expiry of the lease - Dispute between landlord and tenant as to whether there was renewal of the lease - Meanwhile, s. 29A inserted in the Act - Accordingly, the landlord made application for determination of annual rent for the land - Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RCEO) computed the total cost of land as Rs. 12, 80, 8461- and fixed the rent at Rs. 12, 8081- p. m - High Court fixed the rent of the subject land at Rs. 25001 - p. m. - On appeal, held: In absence of any agreed rent between the parties for the land let out to the tenants, after expiry of the lease, the annual rent in respect of such land can be determined under s. 29A(5) on the basis of the prevailing market value of the land - The High Court erred in fixing the rent solely based on the circle rate fixed under the Stamp Rules since such circle rate cannot be decisive of the prevalent market value of the land - The High Court further erred in ignoring the valuer's report and the evidence let in by the landlord - The consideration of the matter by the High Court suffers from legal flaw and cannot be sustained - However, the rent determined by RCEO is a/so fundamentally erroneous - Case accordingly restored to RCEO for G determination afresh in accordance with law. Prior to June 1, 1970, the subject land was let out to a tenant who, with the consent of the appellant-landlord, built a super-structure (Cinema Hall) thereon. H 330 TRUST JAMA MASJID WAQF N0.31 v. LAKSHMI 331 TALKIES AND ORS. Respondent no.1, a registered partnership firm, A purchased the said super structure from the erstwhile tenant and took the subject land on lease from the landlord for a rent of Rs. 70/- p.m. from June 1, 1970 for a term of. 7 years. Meanwhile the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came to be amended whereby Section 29-A was inserted with effect from July 5, 1976. In the light of the provisions contained B in Section 29-A, the appellant-landlord made an C application for determination of the annual rent for the subject land before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RCEO), who computed the total cost of land at. Rs. 12,80,846/- and accordingly fixed the rent at Rs. 12,808/- p.m. Against this decision, the respondent-tenants filed writ petition before the High Court, which allowed the writ D petition in part and fixed the rent at Rs. 2500/- p.m. payable from June 1, 1984. The landlord contended before the Supreme Court that the RCEO fixed the rent based on substantive assessment of the factual position and, therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of the RCEO. Per contra, the tenants submitted that in view of the terms of the lease deed (particularly, clauses 4 and 5 thereof), the lease stood renewed automatically and rent had been enhanced w.e.f. June 1, 1977 and, therefore, Section 29-A of the 1972 U.P. Act was not attracted. Partly allowing the. appeal of the landlord while dismissing the tenants' appeal, the Court. HELD:1. Section 29-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force w.e.f. July 5, 1976. For applicability ofSection E F G H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A 29-A as provided by sub-section (2), two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (one) that land alone has been let out and (two) that permanent structure has been constructed by the tenant with landlord's consent incurring his own expenses. It is not important whether B the land has been let out either before or after the commencement of Section 29-A. Sub-section(4) provides for the liability of the tenant to pay to the landlord mutually agreed rent and in the absence of such agreement, the rent as may be determined under sub section (5). The c District Magistrate is empowered under sub-section(5) to determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of 10% per annum of its prevailing market value. Such determination of annual rent can be made by the District Magistrate at the instance of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.