JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by tenant which arises out of release proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Release application filed by landlady/respondent No. 3 numbered as P.A. Case No. 31 of 1988 was allowed by IVth Additional C.J.M./ Prescribed Authority, Etawah through judgment and order dated 27.5.1993, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Tenant/petitioner's appeal being P.A. Appeal No. 17 of 1993 was dismissed by IVth Additional District Judge, Etawah through judgment and order dated 2.5.1996. Landlady pleaded that she purchased the house in dispute on 13.5.1985 from its previous landlord, that petitioner was tenant in the house in dispute since before its purchase, that the tenant illegally started using one room of the house in dispute for business purpose. It was further pleaded by the landlady that she along with her family resided in a tenanted house belonging to a trust. Tenant petitioner pleaded that the house in which landlady was residing belongs to the trust of which husband of the landlady was sarvarakar and he had a right to reside in the house in dispute. The tenant further pleaded that he was using one room in the house in dispute for business purposes for a very long time with the consent of the pervious landlady. The tenant/ petitioner stated in one of his affidavit that husband of the landlady had got a plot of land in the same city where he had constructed some building but had left the same incomplete in order to take advantage in the instant case. There was some dispute with regard to the locality in which the said property is situated. In some affidavits filed by the tenant and by his witnesses it was mentioned that the property of landlady or her husband was situate in Ambedkar Nagar. However, the fact is that there is immovable property belonging to the husband of the landlady situate in mohalla Lohiya Nagar. Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court inspected the property and found that it contained boundary wall, gate and a room without roof and doors. The Commissioner further reported that in the said property there was no toilet or bathroom or facility of water. The report of the Commissioner is Paper No. 41Ga.
2. Both the courts below found the need of the landlady bona fide. Finding of comparative hardship was also recorded in favour of the landlady.
3. The landlady had alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 18 per month, however, tenant pleaded that it was only Rs. 10 per month.
4. As far as house belonging to the trust in which landlady is residing is concerned, it cannot negative the bona fide need of the landlady to reside in her own house purchased by her. Even a sarvarakar cannot claim unfettered right of residence in the trust property. The said right depends upon the will of the trustees, hence the mere fact that landlady along with her husband and: other family members resided in the trust house could not be a ground to reject the claim of the landlady that she bona-fidely required the house in dispute which she purchased for her residence. As far as the property of Lohiya Nagar is concerned, the Commissioner found the same to be not in-habitable, hence the same cannot be considered to be alternative accommodation available to the landlady.
5. As far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, the defence of the tenant was that he was continuing as tenant in the house in dispute at a very cheap rate of rent i.e., Rs. 10 per month and it was impossible for him to find another accommodation at the same rent. This plea of the tenant is not tenable. Landlady has got no concern with the rent which tenant may be required to pay for the other accommodation or tenant's capacity to afford the said rent. There is a big lacuna in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 that after October, 1972 there is no provision for periodical enhancement of the rent. In somewhat similar circumstance while considering Bombay Rent Control Act, the Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 602, has held that such an omission is arbitrary and discriminatory. The said omission cannot be further stretched by the tenant. No tenant can be heard to say that as he is enjoying the tenancy rights on highly inadequate rent, hence he must not be ejected as otherwise he will not be able to enjoy the said luxury on payment of almost no rent (rent of Rs. 10 per month now-a-days is actually on rent). If the landlord comes to collect the said rent in rickshaw, he will be required to pay more as fare than rent realised by him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts below should have considered the applicability of Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and should have considered the question of part release, even though it was not pleaded by the tenant. In this regard there is no material available on record on the basis of which applicability of the said rule may be considered. The accommodation in dispute consist of only two rooms, hence, there is no question of part release.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited certain authorities to the effect that appellate court should give reasons for dismissing the appeal. In the instant case appellate court has given ample reasons for dismissing the appeal and has considered entire relevant material on record.
8. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed.
9. However, tenant/petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that within one month from today he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that within the aforesaid period of six months he will vacate the premises in dispute and handover its vacant possession to the landlady. If no undertaking is filed within a month petitioner shall be evicted through process of court immediately after one month.
10. Before parting with the case, it is essential to point out the attention of the Legislature towards the necessity for incorporating the provision for periodical enhancement of rent in U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). The Supreme Court in the authority reported in AIR 1998 SC 602 (adverted to in the earlier part of the judgment) took into consideration, Report of Economic Administrative Reforms Commission on Rent Control presented to the Government of India in September, 1982 particularly paragraph 51 of the said report which was quoted in the judgment in para 16 thereof which is reproduced below :
"We now turn to the problem of existing tenancies. Many of these are very old and the rents were fixed a few decades ago. These old and frozen rents bear little relation to the present day maintenance costs, or to the current returns from alternative Investments, or to the prevailing market rents in respect of new accommodation. In the case of new construction we have suggested that the periodical revision of rents should be based on a partial neutralization of the effects of Inflation. Applying the same principle to existing tenancies where rents have remained frozen for at least 5 years, what needs to be done is to update those rents by neutralizing 50 per cent of the inflation which has taken place from the time of initial determination of those rents up to the present time."
11. Paragraphs 26 to 29 and part of para 30 of the aforesaid Supreme Court authority are quoted below :
"26. It is true that whenever a special provision, like the Rent Control Act, is made for a section of the society it may be at the cost of another section, but the making of such a provision or enactment may be necessary in the larger interest of the society as a whole but the benefit which is given initially if continued results in increasing injustice to one section of the society and an unwarranted largess or windfall to another, without appropriate corresponding relief, then the continuation of such a law which necessarily, or most likely, leads to increase in lawlessness and undermines the authority of the law can no longer be regarded as being reasonable. Its continuance becomes arbitrary.
27. The Legislature itself, as already noticed hereinabove, has taken notice of the fact that puggrie system has become prevalent in Mumbai because of the Rent Restriction Act. This Court was also asked to take judicial notice of the fact that in view of the unreasonably low rents which are being received by the landlords, recourse is being taken to other methods to seek redress. These methods which are adopted are outside the four corners of the law and are slowly giving rise to a state of lawlessness where, it is feared, the courts may become irrelevant in deciding disputes between the landlords and tenants. This should be a cause of serious concern because if this extra judicial back-lash gathers momentum the main sufferers will be the tenants, for whose benefit the Rent Control Acts are framed.
28. In so far as social legislation, like the Rent Control Act is concerned, the law must strike a balance between rival interests and it should try to be just to all. The law ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit or protection to another section of the society. When there is shortage of accommodation it is desirable, nay, necessary that some protection should be given to the tenants in order to ensure that they are not exploited. At the same time such a law has to be revised periodically so as to ensure that a disproportionately larger benefit than the one which was intended is not given to the tenants. It is not as if the Government does not take remedial measures to try and off set the effects of inflation. In order to provide fair wage to the salaried employees the Government provides for payment of dearness and other allowances from time to time. Surprisingly this principle is lost sight of while providing for increase in the standard rent--the increase made even in 1987 are not adequate, fair or just and the provisions continue to be arbitrary in todays context.
29. When enacting socially progressive legislation the need is greater to approach the problem from a holistic perspective and not to have a narrow or short sighted parochial approach. Giving a greater than due emphasis to a vocal section of society results not merely in the miscarriage of justice but in the abdication of responsibility of the legislative authority. Social Legislation is treated with deference by the courts not merely because the Legislature represents the people but also because in representing them the entire spectrum of views is expected to be taken into account. The Legislature is not shackled by the same constraints as the courts of law. But it's power is coupled with a responsibility. It is also the responsibility of the courts to look at legislation from the alter of Article 14 of the Constitution. This article is intended, as is obvious from its words, to check this tendency, giving undue preference to some over others.
30. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration we have no doubt that the existing provisions of the Bombay Rent Act relating to the determination and fixation of the standard rent can no longer be considered to be reasonable. The said provisions would have been struck down as having now become unreasonable and arbitrary but we think it is not necessary to strike down the same in view of the fact that the present extended period of the Bombay Rent Act comes to an end on 31st March, 1998. The Government's thinking reflected in various documents itself shows that the existing provisions have now become unreasonable and, therefore, require reconsideration. The new bill is under consideration and we leave it to the Legislature to frame a just and fair law keeping in view the interest of all concerned and in particular the resolution of the State Ministers for Housing of 1992 and the National Model Law which has been circulated by the Central Government in 1992."
12. In view of the above it is expected that the State Legislature will consider the desirability and necessity for incorporating the provision for periodical enhancement of rent regarding tenancies governed by U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972).
Registrar General is directed to send the copies of this judgment to Chief Secretary and Law Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh.