Market-based rent fixation during pending proceedings may be upheld when the revised rent is reasonable and non-perverse.

During pendency of writ proceedings, a court may sustain an interim enhancement of rent where the figure is fixed after hearing both parties and reflects a reasonable market-based assessment of the premises. The absence of a separate valuation report does not, by itself, render the order infirm. In this matter, the shops were in a commercial location on a main highway, the earlier rent was found to be well below prevailing market levels, and the enhanced rent was treated as just, proper, and commensurate with the locality. Interference with the interim order was declined, the appeal failed, and costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the rent of the tenanted shops during the pendency of the writ petition and whether the appellate court should interfere with that interim order.

Analysis: The enhancement was upheld because it was made after the parties addressed the question of rent and not as a unilateral increase. The shops were situated in a commercial area on a main highway, and the earlier rent was found to be far below the prevailing market level. The assessment made by the High Court was treated as a reasonable determination of present market rent, and the absence of a separate valuation report did not by itself vitiate the order. The Court also approved the approach of fixing rent at a level that is just, proper, and commensurate with the location and surroundings of the premises.

Conclusion: The rent enhancement was sustained and interference was declined. The appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The interim order fixing enhanced rent was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. The Court also indicated general guidelines for fixing realistic rent in landlord-tenant matters to reduce avoidable litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where rent is revised during pending proceedings after consideration of the parties' stand and the figure reflects a reasonable market-based assessment of the premises, interference is unwarranted unless the challenge discloses clear unreasonableness or perversity.

---