High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Tripti Auto Garage Thru. Propriter Shashi Kant Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Co-Op. Societies Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narian Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Anand Shanker Asthana Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Shanker Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure No. 2) passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as the appellate order dated 31.01.2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the tenant of the premises owned by the respondent no. 3-Cooperative Society. Initially, the rent fixed in between the parties was Rs.500/- per month, however, on account of the some directions issued by the Cane Commissioner, the rent was unilaterally enhanced to Rs.51000/- per annum. The petitioner challenged the said action by filing a Writ Petition i.e. Misc. Bench No. 11384 of 2013. In the said writ petition, it was argued that the unilateral enhancement of rent from Rs.500/- to Rs.51000/- was arbitrary. In the said petition, a contention was raised by the respondent that Section 8 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, empowers the fixation of rent. The said objection was upheld and directions were issued for moving a representation before the District Magistrate, Hardoi. In terms of the said order dated

06.12.2013 passed by the High Court, an application was moved before the District Magistrate in purported exercise of power under Section 8 and 9 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The District Magistrate exercising the powers, which are akin to Section 8 and 9 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 determined the fair rent at Rs.51250/- per year. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the District Judge being Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2015, which was too dismissed on 31.01.2017.

4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that both the parties have erred in fixing the rent which is, according to the petitioner, arbitrary.

5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand justifies the order passed enhancing the rent.

6. On perusal of the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, it is clear that the said Act was enacted for regulating the rent, letting and eviction of certain class of tenants from the premises which were covered under the Act. Section 8 of the said Act prescribes that in case of the dispute with regard to the amount of standard rent or where the enhancement of rent is permissible under Section 5 or 6 of the Act, the District Magistrate is empowered to determine such dispute. The manner in which the standard rent is to be determined is prescribed under Section 9 of the Act.

7. It is also essential to notice that the definition of standard rent as defined under Section 3(k), Section 8 & 9 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are reproduced herein below: "3(k) 'standard rent', subject to the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10, means- (1) in the case of building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of the commencement of this Act- (a) where there is both an agreed rent payable therefor at such commencement as well as a reasonable annual rent which in this Act has the same meaning as in Section 2 (f) of the old Act, reproduced in the Schedule the agreed rent, or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent thereon, whichever is greater; (b) where there is no agreed rent, but there is a reasonable annual rent, the reasonable rent plus 25 per cent, thereon; (c) where there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable annual rent, the rent as determined under Section 9; (ii) in any other case, the assessed letting value, for the time being in force, and in the absence of assessment, the rent determined under Section 9.

8. Disputes regarding amount of standard rent, etc.- (1) Where a dispute arises with regard to the amount of the standard rent or to the amount of enhancement in rent permissible under Section 5 or Section 6 or to the date with effect from which such enhancement shall take effect, or to the amount of taxes payable by the tenant under Section 7, or to the amount of proportionate rent payable by the tenant after a part of the building or any land appurtenant thereto is released under Section 16 or Section 21, or to the amount of rent payable by the original tenant for the new building allotted to him under sub-section (2) of Section 24, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made in that behalf, by order [determine such dispute]. (2) Where the assessment of a building occupied by a tenant is lower than the agreed rent payable therefor, the District Magistrate, on an application of the tenant or of his own motion, may, after giving to the landlord an opportunity of being heard, direct the local authority concerned to enhance the assessment in accordance with the agreed rent with effect from the date from which the agreed rent has been payable or the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in the law relating to that local authority, the assessment shall be corrected accordingly. (3) Every order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall, subject to the result of any appeal preferred under Section 10, be final.

9. Determination of standard rent-(1) In the case of a building to which the old Act was applicable and which is let out at the time of the commencement of this Act in respect of which there is neither any reasonable annual rent nor any agreed rent or in any other case where there is neither any agreed rent nor any assessment in force, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made in that behalf, determine the standard rent. (2) In determining the standard rent the District Magistrate may consider: (a) the respective market-value of the building and of its site immediately before the date of commencement of this Act or the date of letting, whichever is later (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said date); (b) the cost of construction, maintenance and repairs of the building; (c) the prevailing rents for similar buildings in the locality immediately before the said date; (d) the amenities provided in the building; (e) the latest assessment, if any, of the building; (f) any other relevant fact which appears in the circumstances of the case to be material. [(2-A) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the District Magistrate shall ordinarily consider ten per centum per annum on the market value of the building (including its site) on the said date to be the annual standard rent thereof, and the monthly standard rent shall be equal to one-twelfth of the annual standard rent so calculated). (3) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the result of any appeal preferred under Section 10, be final.

8. On perusal of the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the landlord is entitled to charge standard rent. In the present case, there were agreed rent payable, as such, there was no occasion for re-fixation of the standard rent in the absence of any exercise being carried out under the said Act. The determination of standard rent under Section 9 would also not arise in the present case, as Section 9 can be invoke only when there is neither any agreed rent. In the present case, the agreed rent was Rs.500/- per month, no exercise for determination of standard rent, could be undertaken or was actually undertaken, as such, the matter could not have been referred for re- determination under Section 8 of the Act. Thus on a conjoint reading of Section 3(k), Section 8 & 9 of the Act, it is clear that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to undertake or decide the dispute in the absence of there being any determination of standard rent under Section 9 and a dispute arising thereto, as such, both the orders cannot be justified, however, as U.P. Act XIII of 1972 has been repealed, the respondent would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under the Urban Premises Tenancy Act-2021, if so advised, in accordance with law or under any other law for eviction of the tenant in accordance with law after following the procedure prescribed.

9. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Tripti Auto Garage Thru. Propriter Shashi Kant Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Co-Op. Societies Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narian Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Anand Shanker Asthana Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Shanker Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure No. 2) passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as the appellate order dated 31.01.2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the tenant of the premises owned by the respondent no. 3-Cooperative Society. Initially, the rent fixed in between the parties was Rs.500/- per month, however, on account of the some directions issued by the Cane Commissioner, the rent was unilaterally enhanced to Rs.51000/- per annum. The petitioner challenged the said action by filing a Writ Petition i.e. Misc. Bench No. 11384 of 2013. In the said writ petition, it was argued that the unilateral enhancement of rent from Rs.500/- to Rs.51000/- was arbitrary. In the said petition, a contention was raised by the respondent that Section 8 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, empowers the fixation of rent. The said objection was upheld and directions were issued for moving a representation before the District Magistrate, Hardoi. In terms of the said order dated

06.12.2013 passed by the High Court, an application was moved before the District Magistrate in purported exercise of power under Section 8 and 9 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The District Magistrate exercising the powers, which are akin to Section 8 and 9 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 determined the fair rent at Rs.51250/- per year. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the District Judge being Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2015, which was too dismissed on 31.01.2017.

4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that both the parties have erred in fixing the rent which is, according to the petitioner, arbitrary.

5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand justifies the order passed enhancing the rent.

6. On perusal of the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, it is clear that the said Act was enacted for regulating the rent, letting and eviction of certain class of tenants from the premises which were covered under the Act. Section 8 of the said Act prescribes that in case of the dispute with regard to the amount of standard rent or where the enhancement of rent is permissible under Section 5 or 6 of the Act, the District Magistrate is empowered to determine such dispute. The manner in which the standard rent is to be determined is prescribed under Section 9 of the Act.

7. It is also essential to notice that the definition of standard rent as defined under Section 3(k), Section 8 & 9 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are reproduced herein below: "3(k) 'standard rent', subject to the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10, means- (1) in the case of building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of the commencement of this Act- (a) where there is both an agreed rent payable therefor at such commencement as well as a reasonable annual rent which in this Act has the same meaning as in Section 2 (f) of the old Act, reproduced in the Schedule the agreed rent, or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent thereon, whichever is greater; (b) where there is no agreed rent, but there is a reasonable annual rent, the reasonable rent plus 25 per cent, thereon; (c) where there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable annual rent, the rent as determined under Section 9; (ii) in any other case, the assessed letting value, for the time being in force, and in the absence of assessment, the rent determined under Section 9.

8. Disputes regarding amount of standard rent, etc.- (1) Where a dispute arises with regard to the amount of the standard rent or to the amount of enhancement in rent permissible under Section 5 or Section 6 or to the date with effect from which such enhancement shall take effect, or to the amount of taxes payable by the tenant under Section 7, or to the amount of proportionate rent payable by the tenant after a part of the building or any land appurtenant thereto is released under Section 16 or Section 21, or to the amount of rent payable by the original tenant for the new building allotted to him under sub-section (2) of Section 24, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made in that behalf, by order [determine such dispute]. (2) Where the assessment of a building occupied by a tenant is lower than the agreed rent payable therefor, the District Magistrate, on an application of the tenant or of his own motion, may, after giving to the landlord an opportunity of being heard, direct the local authority concerned to enhance the assessment in accordance with the agreed rent with effect from the date from which the agreed rent has been payable or the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in the law relating to that local authority, the assessment shall be corrected accordingly. (3) Every order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall, subject to the result of any appeal preferred under Section 10, be final.

9. Determination of standard rent-(1) In the case of a building to which the old Act was applicable and which is let out at the time of the commencement of this Act in respect of which there is neither any reasonable annual rent nor any agreed rent or in any other case where there is neither any agreed rent nor any assessment in force, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made in that behalf, determine the standard rent. (2) In determining the standard rent the District Magistrate may consider: (a) the respective market-value of the building and of its site immediately before the date of commencement of this Act or the date of letting, whichever is later (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said date); (b) the cost of construction, maintenance and repairs of the building; (c) the prevailing rents for similar buildings in the locality immediately before the said date; (d) the amenities provided in the building; (e) the latest assessment, if any, of the building; (f) any other relevant fact which appears in the circumstances of the case to be material. [(2-A) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the District Magistrate shall ordinarily consider ten per centum per annum on the market value of the building (including its site) on the said date to be the annual standard rent thereof, and the monthly standard rent shall be equal to one-twelfth of the annual standard rent so calculated). (3) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the result of any appeal preferred under Section 10, be final.

8. On perusal of the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the landlord is entitled to charge standard rent. In the present case, there were agreed rent payable, as such, there was no occasion for re-fixation of the standard rent in the absence of any exercise being carried out under the said Act. The determination of standard rent under Section 9 would also not arise in the present case, as Section 9 can be invoke only when there is neither any agreed rent. In the present case, the agreed rent was Rs.500/- per month, no exercise for determination of standard rent, could be undertaken or was actually undertaken, as such, the matter could not have been referred for re- determination under Section 8 of the Act. Thus on a conjoint reading of Section 3(k), Section 8 & 9 of the Act, it is clear that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to undertake or decide the dispute in the absence of there being any determination of standard rent under Section 9 and a dispute arising thereto, as such, both the orders cannot be justified, however, as U.P. Act XIII of 1972 has been repealed, the respondent would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under the Urban Premises Tenancy Act-2021, if so advised, in accordance with law or under any other law for eviction of the tenant in accordance with law after following the procedure prescribed.

9. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench