JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India one filed by the landlord and another by the tenant arising out of the following set of facts.
2. It is admitted fact that petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6779 of 1995 is the landlord and the petitioner No. 2 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11406 of 1995 is the tenant and since both have challenged the same judgment arising out of same set of facts, they are being decided by this common judgment.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
4. The facts as emerged from the pleadings of the writ petitions are that on 16th January, 1979. the landlord moved an application under Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in short the "Act" for enhancement of rent of the premises in question from Rs. 379 per month to Rs. 30,302 per month. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the Act, rejected the application for enhancement of rent on 16th August, 1980, on the ground that the building in question being under the tenancy of the State Government, therefore was not covered by the provisions of the Act. Against the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, an appeal being Appeal No. 385 of 1980 was filed by the landlord before the District Judge. The District Judge vide its order dated 31st March, 1981, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 16th August, 1980 and remanded back the matter to Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. On remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 26th August, 1981, allowed the application for enhancement of rent and enhanced the rent from Rs. 379 per month to Rs. 939 per month.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 26th August, 1981, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the tenant preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 305 of 1981 before the District Judge concern. The landlord also challenged the aforesaid order dated 26th August, 1981, by means of Appeal No. 538 of 1981. The District Judge/ appellate authority consolidated both the appeals and vide his judgment and order dated 12th July, 1982, decided the matter, whereby the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed thereby enhanced the rent of the building in question from Rs. 379 per month to Rs. 7.083 per month.
6. Against the order dated 12th July, 1982, passed by the District Judge concern, both the parties, namely, the landlord as well as the tenant have filed writ petitions before this Court, which were numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10266 of 1982 filed by the landlord and Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 12906 of 1982 filed by the tenant. In the meantime, the suit being Suit No. 221 of 1980 filed by landlord against the tenant for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the ground of default with effect from 1st January, 1979, was decreed by the trial court vide its order dated 16th March, 1983. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16th March, 1983, the tenant preferred a revision being Civil Revision No. 369 of 1983 before this Court. This Court on 2nd January, 1984, dismissed the revision filed by the tenant.
7. The tenant took up the matter to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. No. 3646 of 1984, The Supreme Court vide its order dated 10th September, 1984 disposed of the S.L.P. filed by the tenant with the direction that the tenant will pay the rent as directed by the District Judge concern vide his order dated 12th July, 1982, i.e., Rs. 7,083 per month for the area occupied by the tenant. In the meantime, both the parties, namely, the landlord as well as the tenant compromised the matter on 11th October, 1984. In terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties the tenant was allowed to retain the existing structure along with appurtenant land, total thereof comes to 4308 Sq. Yd. It will not be out of place to mention here that out of the total area, which is 19894 Sq. Yd., the area of 4308 Sq. Yd. which is approximately one fourth of the total area over which the disputed building in tenancy was situated and the balance 15586 Sq. Yd. area was handed over to the landlord in the premises in question.
8. This Court vide its order dated 19th May, 1992, allowed the Writ Petition No. 10266 of 1982 filed by the landlord and set aside the order dated 12th July, 1982 and remanded back the matter to the District Judge concern to decide the same afresh. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-petitioner (tenant in Writ Petition No. 11406 of 1995) stated that the order dated 10th September, 1984 passed the Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the Court. After remand, the appellate authority/ District Judge allowed the appeal No. 538 of 1981 on 15th September, 1994 filed by the landlord setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 26th August, 1981 and enhanced the rent from Rs. 939 per month to Rs. 30,303 per month. It is this order, which has now been challenged by both the landlord as well as by the tenant by means of these two writ petitions.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant argued that enhancement of the rent from Rs. 379 per month to Rs. 30,303 per month, is arbitrary, particularly when the fact that the tenant has already handed over the possession of more than 3/4 of the area of land of the premises in question out of the total land in his possession to the landlord. Thus, the rent, namely. Rs. 7,083 per month, which was held to be payable by the Supreme Court on the date of the compromise should have been further reduced proportionately and the District Judge has erred in directing the payment of enhanced rent for the period from February, 1979 to October, 1984 at the rate of Rs. 16,508 per month and for the period from November, 1984 to March, 1993 at the rate of Rs. 7,083 per month and from March, 1993 onwards Rs. 30,303 per month, which is wholly arbitrary based on absolutely no material and also based on surmises and conjectures of the appellate authority.
10. The landlord in Writ Petition No. 6779 of 1995 contended that the appellate authority should have allowed the rent Rs. 30,303 per month, except for the period for which the Supreme Court had fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 7,083 per month. To me it appears that in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, namely, the landlord as well as the tenant during the pendency of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court on the condition that the tenant will release approximately 3/4 portion of the vacant land and out of the total area of the accommodation in question and would retain only 4308 Sq. Yd., i.e., 1/4 portion and thereafter the direction of the Supreme Court that the rent payable would be Rs. 7,083 per month is binding between the parties, therefore, to me it appears that the Writ Petition No. 6779 of 1995 filed by the landlord deserves to be dismissed and that of the tenant, i.e., Writ Petition No. 11406 of 1995 deserves , to be allowed. The view taken by the appellate authority/District Judge in the order impugned in the present petitions directing the payment of rent of different rate other than Rs. 7,083 per month deserves to be set aside particularly in the circumstance that after considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record as well as the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Supreme Court, which was arrived at with the consent of landlord as well as by the tenant. Since the rent was directed to be paid at the rate of Rs. 7,083 per month, the writ petition filed by the tenant, i.e., Writ Petition No. 11406 of 1995 is allowed. The rent is fixed at the rate of Rs. 7,083 per month, which has been fixed by the Supreme Court.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, Writ Petition No. 6779 of 1995 filed by the landlord is dismissed, except for the modification in the operative portion, as hereinbefore stated. Writ Petition No. 11406 of 1995 filed by the tenant is allowed. The order impugned in the Writ Petition No. 11406 of 1995 is quashed. The operative portion of the order of the appellate authority/ District Judge is modified to the extent that the rent payable by the tenant from 1st February. 1979, would be 7,083 per month. Order accordingly.