JUDGEMENT
S.U.Khan, J. -
(1.)This writ petition filed by the tenants arises out of the proceedings under Section 29A of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, initiated by landlord respondent No. 2 for enhancement of rent. The application was filed on 29.11.1988. The lease deed in between the parties was executed on 2.6.1970. Prior to execution of the lease deed building in the form of cinema hall was existing over the lease land. The building had been constructed by the previous tenant and sold by him to the petitioners to whom the land over which the building was constructed was also let out through the aforesaid lease deed of 1970! The monthly rent provided for under the lease deed was Rs. 70 per month. The lease was initially for a period of 7 years with the clause for renewal/continuance after 7 years also on enhancement of rent. There is no dispute that after 7 years, i.e., from June, 1977 rent was enhanced from Rs. 70 to Rs. 105 per month. In the application for enhancement of rent it was alleged that the market value of the lease land was Rs. 20 lakhs. The provision of enhancement of rent, i.e., Section 29A was inserted in U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with effect from 5.7.1976. The area of the lease land is 915 square yards. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura allowed the application of landlord respondent under Section 29A (5) of the Act by order dated 13.3.1991 and enhanced the rent to Rs. 12,808 per month with effect from 1.6.1977. This writ petition Is directed against the said order.
(2.)Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the impugned order has held that the cinema hall known as Lakshmi Talkies built over the lease land is situate in the middle of the city on the road where the valuation of the land was more than of other lands and the circle rate determined by the Collector under Rule 340A of U. P. Stamp Rules at the relevant time was Rs. 350 per square metre. After taking into consideration all these factors R. C. and E.O. fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,400 per square yards.
(3.)The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings were not maintainable as there was provision of renewal/automatic renewal in the lease deed itself after every 7 years with enhancement in rent and as rent had been enhanced with effect from 1.6.1977, hence, application for enhancement of rent was not maintainable. Interpreting a similar provision of enhancement of rent under Section 21 (8) of the Act, it has been held in 1993 (2) ARC 21 that existence of clause in the lease deed of periodical enhancement of rent is no bar to enhancement of rent in accordance with the said section. The same view is equally applicable to the proceedings under Section 29A (5) of the Act. It has been held in Full Bench decision in 1987 (1) ARC 290, that the expression agreement used in Section 29A (4) refers to agreement entered into between the parties after coming into force of Section 29A, i.e., after 5.7.1976 and not an agreement of prior date. In the Instant case the agreement regarding rent (lease) was entered into in the year 1970, i.e., much prior to Insertion of Section 29A in the Act. Merely because there was a provision of enhancement of rent in the lease deed and accordingly rent was enhanced in 1977, it will not render the agreement regarding rent to be of post July, 1976 period. The agreement will remain of 1970.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.