TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent-landlords let out the building in question to the Trade Tax Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh back in the year 1966. After some attempts to have the said property vacated in the 1990s, an application came to be filed for enhancement of rent Case No.05/2008 before the City Magistrate/Rent Control Officer, Bahraich . The total area of the plot was 5866 sq.ft. and covered area is 3645.06 sq.ft. in total. A perusal of the order reveals that the primary consideration in ordering enhancement of rent was that the location of the property being prime and central, along with taking note of the fact that the same Government Authority is paying a much higher rate for another, much smaller building. The Authority also recorded that a similarly placed building was rented out at a particular rate and then applied the same rate to the present case. At the rate Rs.4/- per sq.ft., therefore Rs.14,400/- per month was fixed as the rent. 4. On appeal by the landlord - respondent, the Additional District Judge, Bahraich observed that:- "...while passing the impugned judgement, the learned subordinate court did not record any finding regarding the date and year from which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists; namely: -- (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust ; (b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction : Provided that where the building was in the occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the commencement of this Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds mentioned in clause (a), unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application, and such notice may be given even before the expiration of the aforesaid period of three years : Provided further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....public sector corporation or to a recognized educational institution unless the Prescribe Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable: Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefor to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application: Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement." Let us look to the two deleted clauses, clause (ii) and (iv) Both these sections were omitted by section 14(i)(c)(2) of UP Act No 28 of 1976. They have been quoted in the respondent- landlord's counter affidavit as follows: Clause (ii) "where the landlord was engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment, away from the city, municipality, notified area or town ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only recourse available to the landlord and bonafide requirement as a ground stands completely extinguished. To answer the question strictly as it was posed, we hold that the deletion of clauses (ii) and (iv) does not impact the operationality of the proviso. We are of this firm view for the reason that if the contention of the appellant-State is accepted in so far as the interpretation of the clause is concerned it would amount to virtually making the tenant into the landlord. No bonafide requirement; no enhancement of rent: means no way for the landlord to reclaim his own property either physically or financially. No provision can be read so restrictively only because on the other side of the equation, is the Government itself which would defeat the very purpose of the landlord-tenant relationship. 9. The next question we are required to consider is whether the High Court under Article 227 could have ordered the enhancement of rent. Following are the aspects regarding exercise of this power as can be understood from a perusal of a number of judgments of this Court. [See: Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319; State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641; Surya Dev ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o discretionary in nature and does not confer a right upon any litigant to have it exercised by the court; (x) With specific reference to property or rent it may be noted that the Court under this power is, in the case of the former limited to cases where there is some statutory infraction or alleged collusion with the concerned Authority. In the case of the latter, it has been held that routine exercise of this power would be unwarranted since the special statute provides for the manner of exercise of powers by a particular Authority. 10. In light of the above principles it be observed that although the interference of the High Court under Article 227 in rent matters is not completely barred, it is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly particularly since rent control legislations are considered to be special laws. In this case, it is submitted by the appellant-tenants that there exists no material on record on which the impugned order can stand, or in other words that the respondent-landlords had not appended any material to conclusively show that an adjoining premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.14 per sq. ft. It was a mere statement by the respondent- landlo....