High Court · 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary incorporation in the array of the parties during the course of the day. Order on the Petitions

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel, who appears for the respondent in Writ-A No.1000160 of 2010 and as the petitioner in Writ-A No.11339 of 2016.

6. The Writ-A No.1000160 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.05.2009, whereby an order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and the monthly rent of the premises under the tenancy of the petitioner was enhanced from Rs.257.50 per month to Rs.42001.75 per month as well as the appellate order dated 20.07.2010, whereby the appeal was dismissed.

7. The Writ-A No.11339 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner against an order refusing to release the premises in favour of the petitioner-land lord.

8. Both the petitions relate to the common premises, as such, are being decided by means of this common judgement.

9. The respondent claiming to be the land lord had given the premises to the petitioner on 2.06.1949. The said premises was given to the Post Master General, U.P. then, which was the parent body. Subsequently, the Post and Telegram Department was bifurcated by the Ministry of Telecommunication and subsequently, the premises in question was occupied by the company, which was later incorporated and known as BSNL. As the respondent was barred from taking out eviction proceedings against the petitioner, he moved an application under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking enhancement of the rent in terms of the measures as prescribed. On the said application, an order came to passed on 24.02.2007 rejecting the application. The said order was challenged in an appeal No.5 of 2007, which was allowed by the appellate authority on 06.08.2008 and the matter was remanded for fixation of the rent within a fixed time. In terms of the said remand, an order came to be passed by the ACM, Lucknow on

06.05.2009, whereby on the basis of valuation report submitted by the land lord, the rent of the premises was enhanced to Rs.42001.75 per month, which was directed to be payable from 1st July, 1998. The said order was challenged in an appeal. The appellate authority considered the submissions and recorded that the land lord had filed a valuer report to justify the enhancement of the rent. However, no document whatsoever was filed by the petitioner to discredit the valuer report or to demonstrate that the rent claimed on the valuation claimed was improper and after considering the said, the appeal was partly allowed and the rent was enhanced to Rs.42001.75 w.e.f.

01.10.2000.

10. It is also worthy to note that another Appeal No.17 of 2009 was filed against the Union of India, which was allowed on the ground that it was the BSNL, which occupied the premises. Challenging the said judgement passed by the appellate authority on 20.07.2010, the present writ petition has been filed.

11. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Post & Telegram Department was bifurcated into two departments, i.e., Department of Post and Department of Telecommunication in the year 1985 and BSNL came w.e.f.

01.10.2000 and thus, both the courts have erred in determining the rent after computing the entire area as a tenanted area.

12. It is further argued that all the buildings which were lent on rent is in excess of Rs.2,000/- and are exempted from the operation of the Act, 1972 by virtue of Section 2(f) of the Rent Control Act and thus, the rent cannot be enhanced to more than Rs.2,000/-.

13. Reliance is placed upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Hari Om Srivastava Vs. Sri Ram Laxman Janki and others 2011(2) ADJ 744 as well as in the case of Vishwant Kumar Vs. Madan Lal Sharma and another (2004) 4 SCC and also on the judgement in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. District Judge and others 2008 (71) ALR 289.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that as the eviction could not be sought, the only remedy open was to seek an enhancement under Section 21(8) of the Act, 1972 and exercising the said right, the application was filed and in absence of any valuation report, contrary to the valuation report furnished by the petitioner, no error is seen in the two orders warranting interference.

15. As regards, Writ-A No.11339 of 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that for the personal need, the premises ought to have been released under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

16. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, admittedly no proceedings are permissible by the land lord for release of the premises in view of the bar created under Section 21(8) of the Act, 1972. However, a reprieve is given to the land lord, who cannot seek ejectment of the tenant, in the form of enhanced rent.

17. The authority has fixed the rent in exercise of the said powers after taking into consideration the sole evidence in form of valuation report submitted by the land lord. There being no other material placed by the petitioner either before the rent control authority or before the appellate authority. Both the authorities have rightly enhanced the rent. Even before this Court, there is no material to discredit the valuation report. Thus, no interference is called for.

18. In respect of the judgements cited, none of the judgements have any applicability to the facts of the present case. The judgement in the case of Vishwant Kumar (supra) relates to fixation of the standard rent. The judgement in the case of Hari Om Srivastava (supra) relates to continuation of proceedings after the enforcement of U.P. Act No.5 of 1995 and the judgement in the case of Central Bank of India (supra), this Court had considered that where the premises was having a rent of more than Rs.2,000/-, an application under Section 21(8) of the Act, 1972 would not lie.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner is only in occupation of part of the premises. However, no such ground appears to have been taken at the appellate stage also. The said argument was neither raised before the rent control authority nor before the appellate authority, thus, cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.

20. Considering the fact that both the courts have passed the orders based upon only evidence as submitted by the land lord and there being no material even before this Court to discredit the said valuation report, no interference is called for.

21. Writ-A No.1000160 of 2010 is dismissed.

22. The rent as enhanced by the appellate court is affirmed.

23. As regards the Writ-A No.11339 of 2016, the provisions of Rent Control Act circumscribed the rights of the land lord for seeking eviction of the tenant, who is a government body. The release application has been rightly rejected warranting no interference.

24. Writ-A No.11339 of 2016 is disposed of.

25. The amounts deposited in pursuance to the interim order shall be paid to the land lord on his moving an appropriate application before the Senior Registrar. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary incorporation in the array of the parties during the course of the day. Order on the Petitions

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel, who appears for the respondent in Writ-A No.1000160 of 2010 and as the petitioner in Writ-A No.11339 of 2016.

6. The Writ-A No.1000160 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.05.2009, whereby an order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and the monthly rent of the premises under the tenancy of the petitioner was enhanced from Rs.257.50 per month to Rs.42001.75 per month as well as the appellate order dated 20.07.2010, whereby the appeal was dismissed.

7. The Writ-A No.11339 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner against an order refusing to release the premises in favour of the petitioner-land lord.

8. Both the petitions relate to the common premises, as such, are being decided by means of this common judgement.

9. The respondent claiming to be the land lord had given the premises to the petitioner on 2.06.1949. The said premises was given to the Post Master General, U.P. then, which was the parent body. Subsequently, the Post and Telegram Department was bifurcated by the Ministry of Telecommunication and subsequently, the premises in question was occupied by the company, which was later incorporated and known as BSNL. As the respondent was barred from taking out eviction proceedings against the petitioner, he moved an application under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking enhancement of the rent in terms of the measures as prescribed. On the said application, an order came to passed on 24.02.2007 rejecting the application. The said order was challenged in an appeal No.5 of 2007, which was allowed by the appellate authority on 06.08.2008 and the matter was remanded for fixation of the rent within a fixed time. In terms of the said remand, an order came to be passed by the ACM, Lucknow on

06.05.2009, whereby on the basis of valuation report submitted by the land lord, the rent of the premises was enhanced to Rs.42001.75 per month, which was directed to be payable from 1st July, 1998. The said order was challenged in an appeal. The appellate authority considered the submissions and recorded that the land lord had filed a valuer report to justify the enhancement of the rent. However, no document whatsoever was filed by the petitioner to discredit the valuer report or to demonstrate that the rent claimed on the valuation claimed was improper and after considering the said, the appeal was partly allowed and the rent was enhanced to Rs.42001.75 w.e.f.

01.10.2000.

10. It is also worthy to note that another Appeal No.17 of 2009 was filed against the Union of India, which was allowed on the ground that it was the BSNL, which occupied the premises. Challenging the said judgement passed by the appellate authority on 20.07.2010, the present writ petition has been filed.

11. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Post & Telegram Department was bifurcated into two departments, i.e., Department of Post and Department of Telecommunication in the year 1985 and BSNL came w.e.f.

01.10.2000 and thus, both the courts have erred in determining the rent after computing the entire area as a tenanted area.

12. It is further argued that all the buildings which were lent on rent is in excess of Rs.2,000/- and are exempted from the operation of the Act, 1972 by virtue of Section 2(f) of the Rent Control Act and thus, the rent cannot be enhanced to more than Rs.2,000/-.

13. Reliance is placed upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Hari Om Srivastava Vs. Sri Ram Laxman Janki and others 2011(2) ADJ 744 as well as in the case of Vishwant Kumar Vs. Madan Lal Sharma and another (2004) 4 SCC and also on the judgement in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. District Judge and others 2008 (71) ALR 289.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that as the eviction could not be sought, the only remedy open was to seek an enhancement under Section 21(8) of the Act, 1972 and exercising the said right, the application was filed and in absence of any valuation report, contrary to the valuation report furnished by the petitioner, no error is seen in the two orders warranting interference.

15. As regards, Writ-A No.11339 of 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that for the personal need, the premises ought to have been released under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

16. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, admittedly no proceedings are permissible by the land lord for release of the premises in view of the bar created under Section 21(8) of the Act, 1972. However, a reprieve is given to the land lord, who cannot seek ejectment of the tenant, in the form of enhanced rent.

17. The authority has fixed the rent in exercise of the said powers after taking into consideration the sole evidence in form of valuation report submitted by the land lord. There being no other material placed by the petitioner either before the rent control authority or before the appellate authority. Both the authorities have rightly enhanced the rent. Even before this Court, there is no material to discredit the valuation report. Thus, no interference is called for.

18. In respect of the judgements cited, none of the judgements have any applicability to the facts of the present case. The judgement in the case of Vishwant Kumar (supra) relates to fixation of the standard rent. The judgement in the case of Hari Om Srivastava (supra) relates to continuation of proceedings after the enforcement of U.P. Act No.5 of 1995 and the judgement in the case of Central Bank of India (supra), this Court had considered that where the premises was having a rent of more than Rs.2,000/-, an application under Section 21(8) of the Act, 1972 would not lie.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner is only in occupation of part of the premises. However, no such ground appears to have been taken at the appellate stage also. The said argument was neither raised before the rent control authority nor before the appellate authority, thus, cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.

20. Considering the fact that both the courts have passed the orders based upon only evidence as submitted by the land lord and there being no material even before this Court to discredit the said valuation report, no interference is called for.

21. Writ-A No.1000160 of 2010 is dismissed.

22. The rent as enhanced by the appellate court is affirmed.

23. As regards the Writ-A No.11339 of 2016, the provisions of Rent Control Act circumscribed the rights of the land lord for seeking eviction of the tenant, who is a government body. The release application has been rightly rejected warranting no interference.

24. Writ-A No.11339 of 2016 is disposed of.

25. The amounts deposited in pursuance to the interim order shall be paid to the land lord on his moving an appropriate application before the Senior Registrar. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench