Balvir Sharan Goyal v. Counsel for

1. Heard Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Both the aforesaid petitions have been filed against the impugned orders of same date passed by the rent authority / rent tribunal having same controversy, as such, both the petitions are clubbed and heard 2 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 together.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed an application under Section 10 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.16 of 2021) for revision of rent in respect to the shop no.1/31/C-2 & 1/31/C-4 Amar Market Johari Bazar, Subhah Bazar, Kotwali Road, Agra as well as consisting of one Chabutra and one shop at the rate of Rs.262/- per month respectively. The aforementioned application was registered as Case No. 449 of 2023 & 450 of 2023. It was mentioned in the aforementioned application that in the area nearby to the shop in question the shop has been let out at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet per month. Petitioners have filed their objection about the maintainability of the application filed under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 stating that the application for revision of rent can be filed under Section 9 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 rather under Section 10 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. The objection was also taken to the effect that there is no written agreement, as such, the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 will not be applicable. Rent authority / Additional District Magistrate heard the matter vide order dated 27.4.2024, allowed the application dated

10.2.2023 rejecting the objection of the petitioners and directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month excluding tax etc. and the same shall be payable from the date of the application i.e.

10.2.2023. Against the order of rent authority dated 27.4.2024,passed in respective cases appeals under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 were filed on behalf of the petitioner before the rent tribunal which was registered as rent appeal no.128 of 2024 & 129 of 2024. The aforementioned appeal were heard and dismissed vide order dated

17.2.2025. Hence Matter Under Article 227 No.9039 of 2025 has been filed for the following relief: "set aside the judgement and order dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) passed by Rent Tribunal /Additional District Judge, Court no.26, Agra in Rent Appeal No.128 of 2024 and the order dated 27.4.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Public Supply) / 3 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 Rent Authority, Agra in Case No.450 of 2023 (Annexure No.2 to the petition)." Hence Matter Under Article 227 No.9044 of 2025 has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. to set aside the judgement and order dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) passed by the Rent Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra passed in Rent Appeal No.129 of 2024. ii. to set aside the order dated 27.4.2024 (Annexure No.2 to the petition) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Public Supply)/ Rent Authority Agra passed in Case No.449 of 2023."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceeding initiated by the landlord/ respondent under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 is not maintainable on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, which is mandatory in nature. She further submitted that the rate of rent has been revised at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month from the date of application including the area of Chabutra which is illegal. She further submitted that the application filed by the landlord under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 was misconceived, as such, the rate of rent cannot be revised at the rate of Rs.100 per square feet. She further submitted that the area of Chabutra which is not part and parcel of the tenanted shop and is only available for ingress and egress for the shop in question, cannot be included in the area of the shop for determining the revision of rent. She further submitted that the appellate tribunal has not exercised the jurisdiction in proper manner as provided under the Act, as such, the appellate order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. She further submitted that the copy of the report along with map submitted by the civil engineer on behalf of the landlord demonstrate that the several shops owned by the landlord are situated in the same market and the rent of those shops have been enhanced by the landlord now the rent of other shops are Rs.5,000/-, Rs.7,000/- & Rs.8,000/- per month. She further submitted that the appellate tribunal have also discarded the specific objection taken by the petitioners that there was no evidence for 4 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 determining the rent of the shop in question at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet. She further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the rent authority and appellate tribunal should be set aside. She further placed reliance upon the following judgements of this Court in support of her argument: i. Neutral Citation:2025:AHC:140978, Sneh Pathology X-Ray Blood Bank Component, Ultrasound & C.T. Scan Centre vs. Virendra Kumar Pandey. ii. 2024 LawSuit (Del) 1894, Ajay Gupta and Another vs. M/S Greenways. iii. Neutra Citation:2013:AHC-LKO:16846, Gyan Chandra Jain vs. A.D.J. XIII, Luckow and others, U.P. Export Corporation Limited vs. A.D.J. XIII, Lucknow and Others. "

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the application under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 was rightly filed claiming revision of rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet per month. He further submitted that the material relating to the rent of the shop of adjoining area have been brought on record at the instance of the landlord. He further submitted that the Chabutra is the part of the tenanted accommodation given to the petitioner, as such, the area has been rightly calculated by the rent authority. He further submitted that the respondent/ landlord has claimed the revision of rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet per month but the rent authority has revised the rent at the rate of Rs.100 per square feet per month which is just and proper exercise of jurisdiction by the rent authority. He further submitted that the shop in dispute is situated in Amar Market, Kotwali Road, Agra, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the fixation of the monthly rent with respect to the shop in question. He further submitted that the appellate Court has also exercised the jurisdiction in proper manner, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order passed by the rent tribunal. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Misc. Bench No.1459 of 2012, Munni Lal Yadav vs. U.P. Cooperative Bank Limited and Others decided on 19.2.2020 in support of his 5 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 argument.

6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners are tenant and respondent is landlord of the shop in question. There is also no dispute about the fact that the application under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed on behalf of the respondent / landlord has been allowed by the rent authority revising the rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month from the date of application i.e. 10.2.2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appeal under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed by petitioners / tenant has been dismissed.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 will be relevant, which is as under: "10. (1) In case of any dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding revision of Rent, the Rent Authority may, on an application made by the landlord or tenant, determine the revised rent and other charges payable by the tenant and also fix the date from which such revised rent becomes payable. (2) In determining the rent to be revised, the Rent Authority may be guided by the prevailing market rent in the surrounding areas let out on rent. (3) Once a determination under this section has been made, no application for fresh determination shall lie for a period of one year after the said determination. (4) The Rent Authority may determine provisional rent during the proceedings for revision of rent which shall be subject determination."

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the relevant portion of the order passed by the rent authority will be relevant, which is as under: "आदेश प्ऴक न्यायालय : अपर िजलािधकारी, नागिरक आपूित A227 No. 9039 of 2025 6 मण्डल : आगरा, जनपद:, तहसील: वाद संख्या :-450/2023 कं प्यूटरीकृ त वाद संख्या:-D202301010000450 बलवीर सरन गोयल बनाम सुरेश गुप्ता व अन्य अंतगर्त धाराः- 10(1), अिधिनयम : उ० ्ऺ० नगरीय पिरसर िकरायेदारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 2021 प्ऴावली का अवलोकन िकया गया एवं उभय प्ष के िव्षान अिधव्वाओं को सुना गया। उ०्ऺ० नगरीय पिरसर िकरायेदारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 2021 की धारा-10 िववाद की िस्थित में िकराया ्ऺािधकरण ्षारा िकराया पुनरीि्षत िकया जानाः- (1) िकराया पुनरी्षण के सम्बन्ध में भूस्वामी और िकरायेदार के मध्य िकसी िववाद की िस्थित में, िकराया ्ऺािधकरण भूस्वामी या िकरायेदार ्षारा िकये गये आवेदन पर, िकरायेदार ्षारा संदेय पुनरीि्षत िकराये और अन्य ्ऺभारों का िनधार्रण कर सकता है और ऐसा िदनांक भी िनयत कर सकता है िजस िदनांक से ऐसा पुनरीि्षत िकराया संदेय होगा। (2) पुनरीि्षत िकये जाने वाले िकराया अवधारण करने में िकराया ्ऺािधकरण िकराया पर िदये गये आस-पास के ्षे्ऴों में ्ऺचिलत बाजार दर से मागर्दिशत हो सकता है। उपरो्व िववेचना से स्प्ि है िक प्षों के मध्य भवनस्वामी एवं िकरायेदार के सम्बन्ध स्थािपत हैं, िकन्तु प्षों के मध्य िकराये का िववाद है। ्ऺाथर् (वादी) ्षारा अपने अिधव्वा के माध्यम से िवप्षी (िकरायेदार) को नोिटस भेजा गया है। नोिटस तामील होने के तीन माह बाद भी ्ऺितवादी ्षारा उ०्ऺ० नगरीय पिरसर िकरायेदारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 2021 में िदये गये ्ऺावधान के अन्तगर्त िविधक िकरायेदारी करार नहीं िकया गया है। ्ऺितवादी के अिधव्वा ्षारा अपनी िलिखत बहस में इस ओर अपना ध्यान आकिषत जरूर िकया है िक वादी ्ऺश्नगत दुकान का िकराया िनयमानुसार अदा करता चला आ रहा है एवं ्ऺितवादी पर वादी का िकसी ्ऺकार का कोई बकाया िकराया नहीं है, िकन्तु इस तथ्य का उल्लेख नहीं िकया गया है िक ्ऺितवादी ने वादी को िकस वषर् / माह का िकराया भुगतान कर िदया है एवं िकस वषर्/माह से िकराया बकाया चल रहा है। साष्य के रूप में िकराया ्ऺािप्त की रसीद या अन्य अिभलेख पूणर् संलग्न नहीं िकये गये हैं। िजससे स्प्ि है िक िवप्षी ने िकराया भुगतान करने में चूक की है। िकरायेदार/ िवप्षी ्षारा अिधिनयम की धारा-4(3) का भी अनुपालन नहीं िकया गया है। ्ऺाथर् / भवनस्वामी ्षारा अपने आवेदन-प्ऴ में 500/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह िकराये की माँग की गयी है। ्ऺाथर् ने अपने शपथ-प्ऴ िदनांक: 19-05-2023 के साथ 1 लीज ए्षीमेंट िदनांकः 11-11-2019 रतन कु मार जैन पु्ऴ ्शी बंगाली मल टोंक, िनवासी-1/249, खालसा गली, रावतपाडा, आगरा एवं स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंिडया ़्ांच सेब का बाजार, आगरा िकराया 19,800 /- रुपये ्ऺितमाह की दर से 2 वाद संख्या-10637/2021 सुदीप कु मार जैन बनाम ्शीमती लीलावंित आहूजा व अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांक: 22-12-2021 ्षारा दुकान सं0-29/296ए/29 लाभ चन्द, माकरॏ ट, राजा की मण्डी, थाना लोहामण्डी, आगरा का िकराया 7 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 750/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह की दर से िनधार्िरत िकया गया है, िकरायेनाम एवं िकराया पुनरीि्षत िकये गये आदेश एवं िकरायेनामे की ्ऺितयां संलग्न की गयी हैं। इसके अितिर्व ्शी संजय गगर् पु्ऴ ्शी सुरेश चंद गगर्, िनवासी-5/67, मिदया कटरा, आगरा का शपथ-प्ऴ संलग्न िकया गया है, िजसमें कहा गया है िक दुकान जो अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, आगरा में भूतल पर िस्थत है, िजसका नं0 1/31सी-4 है। यिद यह दुकान मुझे िकराये पर िमल जाती है तो मैं इस दुकान का िकराया मािलक को 30,000/-रुपये ्ऺितमाह देने को तैयार हूँ। ्ऺाथर् ्षारा अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, आगरा का कोई रिजस्टडर् िकरायेदारी करार दािखल नहीं िकया गया है, िजससे यह स्प्ि हो सके िक अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, आगरा में वतर्मान में ्ऺचिलत िकरये की बाजार दर क्या है। ऐसी िस्थित में ्ऺाथर् का ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िदनांक: 10-02-2023 स्वीकार करते हुए ्ऺश्नगत जायदाद का िकराया 100/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह टैक्स अितिर्व िकया जाना उिचत ्ऺतीत होता है। ऐसी िस्थित में ्ऺाथर् (भवनस्वामी) का ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िदनांकः10-02-2023 स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य है। िवप्षीगण की समस्त आपि्तयों िविधक रूप से पोषणीय न होने के कारण िनरस्त होने योग्य हैं'। आदेश अतएव उ्व तकॏल एवं साष्यों के आधार पर वादी (भवनस्वामी) का ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िदनांिकत 10-02-2023 स्वीकार िकया जाता है। िवप्षीगण की समस्त आपि्तयाँ िविधक रूप से पोषणीय न होने के कारण िनरस्त की जाती हैं। ्ऺश्नगत जायदाद संख्या-1/31/सी-4, अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, सुभाष बाजार, कोतवाली, आगरा िजसमें एक चबूतरा, 6,6"x36", दुकान 6',6×20' (कु ल ्षे्ऴफल

6.6"x23" यानी 149.5 वगर्फीट) का िकराया 100/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह टैक्स अितिर्व की दर से पुनरीि्षत िकया जाता है, जोिक आवेदन की िदनांकः 10-02-2023 से देय होगा। प्ऴावली बाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही दािखल दफ्तर की जाये। िदनांक: 27-04-2024 (सुशीला) अपर िजला मिजस््िेट(ना०आ०)/िकराया ्ऺािधकारी, आगरा।"

10. Perusal of the finding recorded by the rent authority as quoted above demonstrate that the rent authority has revised the rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month excluding taxes etc. from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.2.2023 on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The rate of rent of the adjoining shops, which were brought on record before rent authority were also at the rate of Rs.5000/-, Rs.7,000/ & Rs.8,000/- per month and according to the rent revised by the rent authority at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month, the monthly rent of the shop in question will come to Rs.15,400/- beside taxes etc.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the rate of rent fixed for the shop situated in the same area, the rate of monthly rent should be fixed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month beside 8 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 taxes etc. which will be payable from the date of application i.e.

10.2.2023.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 17.2.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra in Rent Appeal No.128 of 2024 and Rent Appeal No.129 of 2024 as well as order dated 27.4.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Public Supply) / Rent Authority, Agra in Case No.449 of 2023 and case No. 450 of 2023 are liable to be set aside in part and the same are hereby set aside in part. Monthly rent of respective shop in question is fixed as Rs.10,000/- per month beside taxes. Petitioners / tenants of the respective petitions are directed to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month beside taxes in respect to their respective shop from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.2.2023.

13. Both the aforementioned petitions are allowed in part. September 25, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Both the aforesaid petitions have been filed against the impugned orders of same date passed by the rent authority / rent tribunal having same controversy, as such, both the petitions are clubbed and heard 2 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 together.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed an application under Section 10 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.16 of 2021) for revision of rent in respect to the shop no.1/31/C-2 & 1/31/C-4 Amar Market Johari Bazar, Subhah Bazar, Kotwali Road, Agra as well as consisting of one Chabutra and one shop at the rate of Rs.262/- per month respectively. The aforementioned application was registered as Case No. 449 of 2023 & 450 of 2023. It was mentioned in the aforementioned application that in the area nearby to the shop in question the shop has been let out at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet per month. Petitioners have filed their objection about the maintainability of the application filed under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 stating that the application for revision of rent can be filed under Section 9 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 rather under Section 10 of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. The objection was also taken to the effect that there is no written agreement, as such, the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 will not be applicable. Rent authority / Additional District Magistrate heard the matter vide order dated 27.4.2024, allowed the application dated

10.2.2023 rejecting the objection of the petitioners and directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month excluding tax etc. and the same shall be payable from the date of the application i.e.

10.2.2023. Against the order of rent authority dated 27.4.2024,passed in respective cases appeals under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 were filed on behalf of the petitioner before the rent tribunal which was registered as rent appeal no.128 of 2024 & 129 of 2024. The aforementioned appeal were heard and dismissed vide order dated

17.2.2025. Hence Matter Under Article 227 No.9039 of 2025 has been filed for the following relief: "set aside the judgement and order dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) passed by Rent Tribunal /Additional District Judge, Court no.26, Agra in Rent Appeal No.128 of 2024 and the order dated 27.4.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Public Supply) / 3 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 Rent Authority, Agra in Case No.450 of 2023 (Annexure No.2 to the petition)." Hence Matter Under Article 227 No.9044 of 2025 has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. to set aside the judgement and order dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) passed by the Rent Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra passed in Rent Appeal No.129 of 2024. ii. to set aside the order dated 27.4.2024 (Annexure No.2 to the petition) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Public Supply)/ Rent Authority Agra passed in Case No.449 of 2023."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceeding initiated by the landlord/ respondent under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 is not maintainable on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, which is mandatory in nature. She further submitted that the rate of rent has been revised at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month from the date of application including the area of Chabutra which is illegal. She further submitted that the application filed by the landlord under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 was misconceived, as such, the rate of rent cannot be revised at the rate of Rs.100 per square feet. She further submitted that the area of Chabutra which is not part and parcel of the tenanted shop and is only available for ingress and egress for the shop in question, cannot be included in the area of the shop for determining the revision of rent. She further submitted that the appellate tribunal has not exercised the jurisdiction in proper manner as provided under the Act, as such, the appellate order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. She further submitted that the copy of the report along with map submitted by the civil engineer on behalf of the landlord demonstrate that the several shops owned by the landlord are situated in the same market and the rent of those shops have been enhanced by the landlord now the rent of other shops are Rs.5,000/-, Rs.7,000/- & Rs.8,000/- per month. She further submitted that the appellate tribunal have also discarded the specific objection taken by the petitioners that there was no evidence for 4 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 determining the rent of the shop in question at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet. She further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the rent authority and appellate tribunal should be set aside. She further placed reliance upon the following judgements of this Court in support of her argument: i. Neutral Citation:2025:AHC:140978, Sneh Pathology X-Ray Blood Bank Component, Ultrasound & C.T. Scan Centre vs. Virendra Kumar Pandey. ii. 2024 LawSuit (Del) 1894, Ajay Gupta and Another vs. M/S Greenways. iii. Neutra Citation:2013:AHC-LKO:16846, Gyan Chandra Jain vs. A.D.J. XIII, Luckow and others, U.P. Export Corporation Limited vs. A.D.J. XIII, Lucknow and Others. "

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the application under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 was rightly filed claiming revision of rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet per month. He further submitted that the material relating to the rent of the shop of adjoining area have been brought on record at the instance of the landlord. He further submitted that the Chabutra is the part of the tenanted accommodation given to the petitioner, as such, the area has been rightly calculated by the rent authority. He further submitted that the respondent/ landlord has claimed the revision of rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet per month but the rent authority has revised the rent at the rate of Rs.100 per square feet per month which is just and proper exercise of jurisdiction by the rent authority. He further submitted that the shop in dispute is situated in Amar Market, Kotwali Road, Agra, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the fixation of the monthly rent with respect to the shop in question. He further submitted that the appellate Court has also exercised the jurisdiction in proper manner, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order passed by the rent tribunal. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Misc. Bench No.1459 of 2012, Munni Lal Yadav vs. U.P. Cooperative Bank Limited and Others decided on 19.2.2020 in support of his 5 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 argument.

6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners are tenant and respondent is landlord of the shop in question. There is also no dispute about the fact that the application under Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed on behalf of the respondent / landlord has been allowed by the rent authority revising the rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month from the date of application i.e. 10.2.2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appeal under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed by petitioners / tenant has been dismissed.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 10 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 will be relevant, which is as under: "10. (1) In case of any dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding revision of Rent, the Rent Authority may, on an application made by the landlord or tenant, determine the revised rent and other charges payable by the tenant and also fix the date from which such revised rent becomes payable. (2) In determining the rent to be revised, the Rent Authority may be guided by the prevailing market rent in the surrounding areas let out on rent. (3) Once a determination under this section has been made, no application for fresh determination shall lie for a period of one year after the said determination. (4) The Rent Authority may determine provisional rent during the proceedings for revision of rent which shall be subject determination."

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the relevant portion of the order passed by the rent authority will be relevant, which is as under: "आदेश प्ऴक न्यायालय : अपर िजलािधकारी, नागिरक आपूित A227 No. 9039 of 2025 6 मण्डल : आगरा, जनपद:, तहसील: वाद संख्या :-450/2023 कं प्यूटरीकृ त वाद संख्या:-D202301010000450 बलवीर सरन गोयल बनाम सुरेश गुप्ता व अन्य अंतगर्त धाराः- 10(1), अिधिनयम : उ० ्ऺ० नगरीय पिरसर िकरायेदारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 2021 प्ऴावली का अवलोकन िकया गया एवं उभय प्ष के िव्षान अिधव्वाओं को सुना गया। उ०्ऺ० नगरीय पिरसर िकरायेदारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 2021 की धारा-10 िववाद की िस्थित में िकराया ्ऺािधकरण ्षारा िकराया पुनरीि्षत िकया जानाः- (1) िकराया पुनरी्षण के सम्बन्ध में भूस्वामी और िकरायेदार के मध्य िकसी िववाद की िस्थित में, िकराया ्ऺािधकरण भूस्वामी या िकरायेदार ्षारा िकये गये आवेदन पर, िकरायेदार ्षारा संदेय पुनरीि्षत िकराये और अन्य ्ऺभारों का िनधार्रण कर सकता है और ऐसा िदनांक भी िनयत कर सकता है िजस िदनांक से ऐसा पुनरीि्षत िकराया संदेय होगा। (2) पुनरीि्षत िकये जाने वाले िकराया अवधारण करने में िकराया ्ऺािधकरण िकराया पर िदये गये आस-पास के ्षे्ऴों में ्ऺचिलत बाजार दर से मागर्दिशत हो सकता है। उपरो्व िववेचना से स्प्ि है िक प्षों के मध्य भवनस्वामी एवं िकरायेदार के सम्बन्ध स्थािपत हैं, िकन्तु प्षों के मध्य िकराये का िववाद है। ्ऺाथर् (वादी) ्षारा अपने अिधव्वा के माध्यम से िवप्षी (िकरायेदार) को नोिटस भेजा गया है। नोिटस तामील होने के तीन माह बाद भी ्ऺितवादी ्षारा उ०्ऺ० नगरीय पिरसर िकरायेदारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 2021 में िदये गये ्ऺावधान के अन्तगर्त िविधक िकरायेदारी करार नहीं िकया गया है। ्ऺितवादी के अिधव्वा ्षारा अपनी िलिखत बहस में इस ओर अपना ध्यान आकिषत जरूर िकया है िक वादी ्ऺश्नगत दुकान का िकराया िनयमानुसार अदा करता चला आ रहा है एवं ्ऺितवादी पर वादी का िकसी ्ऺकार का कोई बकाया िकराया नहीं है, िकन्तु इस तथ्य का उल्लेख नहीं िकया गया है िक ्ऺितवादी ने वादी को िकस वषर् / माह का िकराया भुगतान कर िदया है एवं िकस वषर्/माह से िकराया बकाया चल रहा है। साष्य के रूप में िकराया ्ऺािप्त की रसीद या अन्य अिभलेख पूणर् संलग्न नहीं िकये गये हैं। िजससे स्प्ि है िक िवप्षी ने िकराया भुगतान करने में चूक की है। िकरायेदार/ िवप्षी ्षारा अिधिनयम की धारा-4(3) का भी अनुपालन नहीं िकया गया है। ्ऺाथर् / भवनस्वामी ्षारा अपने आवेदन-प्ऴ में 500/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह िकराये की माँग की गयी है। ्ऺाथर् ने अपने शपथ-प्ऴ िदनांक: 19-05-2023 के साथ 1 लीज ए्षीमेंट िदनांकः 11-11-2019 रतन कु मार जैन पु्ऴ ्शी बंगाली मल टोंक, िनवासी-1/249, खालसा गली, रावतपाडा, आगरा एवं स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंिडया ़्ांच सेब का बाजार, आगरा िकराया 19,800 /- रुपये ्ऺितमाह की दर से 2 वाद संख्या-10637/2021 सुदीप कु मार जैन बनाम ्शीमती लीलावंित आहूजा व अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांक: 22-12-2021 ्षारा दुकान सं0-29/296ए/29 लाभ चन्द, माकरॏ ट, राजा की मण्डी, थाना लोहामण्डी, आगरा का िकराया 7 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 750/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह की दर से िनधार्िरत िकया गया है, िकरायेनाम एवं िकराया पुनरीि्षत िकये गये आदेश एवं िकरायेनामे की ्ऺितयां संलग्न की गयी हैं। इसके अितिर्व ्शी संजय गगर् पु्ऴ ्शी सुरेश चंद गगर्, िनवासी-5/67, मिदया कटरा, आगरा का शपथ-प्ऴ संलग्न िकया गया है, िजसमें कहा गया है िक दुकान जो अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, आगरा में भूतल पर िस्थत है, िजसका नं0 1/31सी-4 है। यिद यह दुकान मुझे िकराये पर िमल जाती है तो मैं इस दुकान का िकराया मािलक को 30,000/-रुपये ्ऺितमाह देने को तैयार हूँ। ्ऺाथर् ्षारा अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, आगरा का कोई रिजस्टडर् िकरायेदारी करार दािखल नहीं िकया गया है, िजससे यह स्प्ि हो सके िक अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, आगरा में वतर्मान में ्ऺचिलत िकरये की बाजार दर क्या है। ऐसी िस्थित में ्ऺाथर् का ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िदनांक: 10-02-2023 स्वीकार करते हुए ्ऺश्नगत जायदाद का िकराया 100/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह टैक्स अितिर्व िकया जाना उिचत ्ऺतीत होता है। ऐसी िस्थित में ्ऺाथर् (भवनस्वामी) का ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िदनांकः10-02-2023 स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य है। िवप्षीगण की समस्त आपि्तयों िविधक रूप से पोषणीय न होने के कारण िनरस्त होने योग्य हैं'। आदेश अतएव उ्व तकॏल एवं साष्यों के आधार पर वादी (भवनस्वामी) का ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िदनांिकत 10-02-2023 स्वीकार िकया जाता है। िवप्षीगण की समस्त आपि्तयाँ िविधक रूप से पोषणीय न होने के कारण िनरस्त की जाती हैं। ्ऺश्नगत जायदाद संख्या-1/31/सी-4, अमर माकरॏ ट, जौहरी बाजार, सुभाष बाजार, कोतवाली, आगरा िजसमें एक चबूतरा, 6,6"x36", दुकान 6',6×20' (कु ल ्षे्ऴफल

6.6"x23" यानी 149.5 वगर्फीट) का िकराया 100/- रुपये ्ऺित वगर्फीट ्ऺितमाह टैक्स अितिर्व की दर से पुनरीि्षत िकया जाता है, जोिक आवेदन की िदनांकः 10-02-2023 से देय होगा। प्ऴावली बाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही दािखल दफ्तर की जाये। िदनांक: 27-04-2024 (सुशीला) अपर िजला मिजस््िेट(ना०आ०)/िकराया ्ऺािधकारी, आगरा।"

10. Perusal of the finding recorded by the rent authority as quoted above demonstrate that the rent authority has revised the rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month excluding taxes etc. from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.2.2023 on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The rate of rent of the adjoining shops, which were brought on record before rent authority were also at the rate of Rs.5000/-, Rs.7,000/ & Rs.8,000/- per month and according to the rent revised by the rent authority at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet per month, the monthly rent of the shop in question will come to Rs.15,400/- beside taxes etc.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the rate of rent fixed for the shop situated in the same area, the rate of monthly rent should be fixed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month beside 8 A227 No. 9039 of 2025 taxes etc. which will be payable from the date of application i.e.

10.2.2023.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 17.2.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra in Rent Appeal No.128 of 2024 and Rent Appeal No.129 of 2024 as well as order dated 27.4.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Public Supply) / Rent Authority, Agra in Case No.449 of 2023 and case No. 450 of 2023 are liable to be set aside in part and the same are hereby set aside in part. Monthly rent of respective shop in question is fixed as Rs.10,000/- per month beside taxes. Petitioners / tenants of the respective petitions are directed to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month beside taxes in respect to their respective shop from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.2.2023.

13. Both the aforementioned petitions are allowed in part. September 25, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad