Holding

In writ petitions filed by landlords against the rejection of eviction, courts have no power to direct a higher rent; the High Court’s rent‑enhancement order is unsustainable and is set aside.

Summary

The landlord filed eviction suits against tenants occupying a go‑down, a shop and a kothari. The lower authority dismissed all three suits; on appeal the go‑down was ordered to be evicted while the shop and kothari were retained by the tenants. The landlord then filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court challenging the rejection of eviction for the shop and kothari, and the tenants filed a writ against the eviction of the go‑down. The High Court dismissed all writs but, on its own, increased the rent for the shop and kothari from a total of Rs 50 per month to Rs 500 per month. The Supreme Court, relying on State of Maharashtra v. Mis Super Max and Niyas Ahmed Khan, held that a court has no authority to raise rent in a landlord’s writ petition against a rejected eviction, especially where the Rent Act contains no provision for such enhancement. Consequently, the rent‑enhancement order was set aside, and the appeals were partly allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can enhance the rent of premises occupied by a tenant when the landlord’s writ petition challenges the rejection of an eviction/release application.
Whether the absence of a provision for rent enhancement in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 precludes the court from increasing rent.
Whether the High Court’s direction to increase rent from Rs 50 to Rs 500 per month is legally sustainable.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

Subjects

rent controlevictionrent enhancementUttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Actlandlord‑tenantwrit petitionSupreme Court

Judgment

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 295

SUNITA RANI & ORS. A
v.
SRI CHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6140-6141 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 7, 2009
B
[S.H. KAPADIA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS
(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
- -1'
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
AIR 1996 SC 2410 held inappllcable para 9
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
6140-6141 of 2009.
-"!
'!"
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.8.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
F
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~-

H
ORDER

Application for deletion of the name of Respondent No.4
..
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/-.
c
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.

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 authority in so far as it
allowed release of the go-down in favour of the respondents.
The High Court, like the two courts below, heard all the three G
writ petitions together and disposed them of by a common
judgment and order dated 19 August, 2008. The High Court
held that the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate
court was eminently just and in accordance with law. It therefore,
dismissed all the three writ petitions.
H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 5. But the High Court did not stop there. It felt that the
existing rent of the shop and the kothari (in regard to which the
landlord's eviction/release petitions were finally rejected) was
very low and was liable to be increased. It, accordingly, passed
the following order:
B
"The existing rent of Rs.50/- per month for two
accommodations, kothari and shop left in the occupation
of the tenant, is extremely inadequate. Accordingly, it is
directed that w.e.f. August 2008 onwards tenants shall pay
rent for the portion left in their occupation, i.e. kothari and
c shop at the total rate of Rs.500/- per month"

6. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court increasing the
rent of the shop and the kothari from Rs.50/- pm to Rs.500/-
pm, the appellants have come in appeal.
D
7. In a recent judgment dated 27 August, 2009 in C.A. No.
5835 of 2009 (State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Mis Super
Max International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors) a three-.Judge Bench of this
Court examined the question of the Court's authority to increase
E the existing rent or to direct the tenant to pay/deposit in court
an amount in excess of the existing monthly rent. The Court
upheld the court's power and authority to make such a direction
in cases where the tenant goes to the superior court in appeal
or revision against a decree or order of eviction. But at the
same time it made clear that in a case where the landlord goes
F to the superior court against an order rejecting his application
for eviction/release, it is not open to the Court to direct any
increase in the monthly contractual/statutory rent of the
premises. In this regard the decision in the Mis Super Max
International referred to an earlier decision of this court in Niyas
G Ahmed Khan vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan, (2008) 7
sec 539 and made the following observations:
"7. In Niyas Ahmed Khan, the position was quite different.
The landlord's application for eviction of the tenant on
H grounds of personal necessity was turned down by the
SUNITA RANI & ORS. v. SRI CHAND & ORS. 299

.... .~ prescribed authority. The order of the prescribed authority A
was confirmed by the appellate authority. The landlord
challenged the orders passed by the two authorities under
the Rent Control Act in a writ petition filed before the
Allahabad High Court and while admitting the writ petition
the Court gave an interim direction to the tenant to pay rent B
at the rate of Rs.12,050/- per month (in place of the
contractual monthly rent of Rs.150/-). The Court further
directed that if the rent fixed by it was not paid for two
consecutive months the landlord could evict the tenant by
coercive means taking the aid of police. In appeal by the c
tenant, this Court naturally frowned upon the interim order
passed by the High Court and in paragraph 10 of the
decision observed as follows:

• "t "10. To sum up, in writ petitions by landlords against
rejection of eviction petitions, there is no scope for D
issue of any interim direction to the tenant to pay
higher rent. But in writ petitions by tenants against
grant of eviction, the High Court may, as a condition
of stay, direct the tenant to pay higher rent during
the pendency of the writ petition. This again is E
subject to two limitations. First, the condition should
.., ,, be reasonable. Second, there should not be any bar
in the respective State rent control legislation in
,,regard to such increases in rent. Be that as it may."
., F

8. In light of the decisions in Niyas Ahmed Khan and State
of Maharashtra, the High Court judgment in so far as it
enhanced the monthly rent of the shop and the kothari in
occupation of the appellants from Rs.50/- pm to Rs.500/- pm
G
- t
is clearly unsustainable.

9. It may be noted here that the High Court has sought to
}ustify its direction to the appellants to pay the monthly rent for
the shop and the kothari at a rate ten times higher than the
existing rent by pointing out that in the U.P. Rent Control Act H

.....
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 {ADDL.) S.C.R.
~

A there is no provision for enhancement of rent after October, <I. •.,
1972 (except where the Landlord is the Government or a public
charitable or public religious trust). It has also relied upon
decisions of this Court in (i) M. V. Acharya vs. State of )

Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 602, (ii) Satyawati Sharma vs.
B Union of India & Anr., (2008) 5 SCC 287 and (iii) Shangrila
Fo'od Products Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
AIR 1996 SC .2410. There is nothing in either M. V. Acharya
or Satyawati Sharma to suggest that in the absence of any
,. '

provision in the Rent Control Act, the High Court can assume
c the authority and the power to enhance manifold the contractual/
statutory rent payable by the tenant in a writ petition filed by the
landlord against an order rejecting his eviction/release
application. Further, the reliance placed by the High Court on
the decision in Shangrila is equally misplaced. The decision
in Shangrila was rendered in a very different set of facts and
,,. '~
~

D
under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 which has not only a different scheme r-
but altogether different object and purpose.than the Rent Act.
But in Shangrila too, in paragraph 8 of the decision it was
observed as follows:
E
".... It is thus plain and clear that unless the occupant is
first adjudged as an unauthorized occupant, his liability .,,
to pay damages does not arise. In other words, if he is ""'
an unauthorized occupant, he may be required to pay rent
F but not damages ...... "

(emphasis added)
.-"
.
10. Similarly, the absence of any provision for enhancement
of rent after a cut off date in the Rent Act may be an issue for
G consideration in a different context (as in M. V. Acharya) but
f -
in a writ petition filed by the landlord against an order r~ecting
his eviction/release application that cannot be made a ground
for the High Court to assume the authority to enhance the
existing rent. It needs to be realised that a tenant against whom
H the eviction/release application filed by the landlord has been
SUNITA RANI & ORS. v. SRI CHAND & ORS. 301

rejected by the courts below enjoys all the protections afforded A
by the Rent Act, including the one against the enhancement of
rent. That being the position, it is not open to the High Court,
to summarily strip the tenant of the statutory protection and
enhance the existing rent in a completely unguided and
subjective manner. B
11. For the reasons stated above we find the High Court
order enhancing the rent of the shop and the kothari from
Rs.50/.. to Rs.500/- pm quite unsustainable. To that extent, the
High Court order is set aside.
c
12. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent, but
without any order as to costs.
R.P. Appeals partly allowed.

; .