This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.7.1999 passed by District Judge,Jhansi in Rent Appeal No. 15 of 1997 (Central Warehousing Corporation & others vs Prem Narain Khurana) by which the rent has been reached from Rs.1800/- per month to Rs. 4241.60.
The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent landlord has filed an application under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Building Regulation (Letting,Rent and Eviction )Act no. 13 of 1972 before the Rent Control Eviction Officer, Jhansi for enhancing the rent of the godown taken on rent by the opposite party tenant (the present petitioner). The tenancy was created in the year 1977 and the application for enhancement was filed after expiry of nine years i,e. in the year 1986 on the ground that the market value of the godown is Rs.786083.60, therefore, the rent should enhanced.
The application was opposed by the present petitioner on the ground that provision of Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable,further an arbitration proceeding between the parties is pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer has held that the provision of Act no. 13 of 1972 are attracted and the dispute pending before the Arbitrator is not with respect to the enhancement of rent, hence he allowed the application filed under Section 21(8) of Act,13 of 1972 by raising the rent to the tune of Rs.4241.60 per month with effect from 01.02.1986 i.e. with effect from the date of filing of application.
Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate court,the appellate court has also confirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The appellate court has taken the view that even if it is presumed that on the date of filing of an application under Section 21(8) of Act No. 13 of 1972 the Act was not applicable but by the date of decision on the application ten years has expired, therefore, the Act stood applicable and for that order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot be faulted, so far as the finding with regard to the pendency of the arbitration case is concerned the appellate court has also taken the view that petitioner has failed to prove this fact that the dispute between the Arbitrator was with respect to the enhancement of rent.
Sri Praveen Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has vacated the premises and has also paid entire rent pursuant to the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.5.1997. The payment of rent has been disputed by Sri R.K.Chaurasia learned counsel for the respondent.
Be that as it may since according to the petitioner's counsel the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer has been complied with and the premises has been vacated, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law,in case the rent has not been paid as directed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer vide order dated 31.5. 1997.
Dt.02.02.2010 PKB W.P.44829-1999