- (1.) LEAVE granted. Heard both sides.
(2.) THE appellant is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. On allotment of the premises which is the subject matter of the proceedings to the appellant, the rent was fixed as Rs. 150/- per month under section 16 (9)of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (`act' for short) in the year 1985. The respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act in the year 1998, on the ground that they required the premises for their own use. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the petition for eviction and that was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india. While admitting the said writ petition filed by the landlords, a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court issued an interim direction dated 17. 10. 2006 to the tenant (appellate herein) to pay rent at the rate of rs. 12,050/- per month with effect from October, 2006 with a further direction that if the rent at that rate is not paid for two consecutive months, the landlord could evict the tenant by coercive process with the aid of police. The learned Judge has justified his interim direction on the ground that in exercise of writ jurisdiction the High Court can reasonably increase the rent so as to bring it on par with the prevailing market rentals. The increased rent was assessed in the following manner : JUDGEMENT_873_TLPRE0_2008Html1.htm The tenant has challenged the said interim order of the High Court in this appeal by special leave. The premises in question is governed by the provisions of the Act. The said Act contains provisions relating to fixation of standard rent and for increase in rent. Where the statute specifically provides for fixation of rent and increase in rent, it is impermissible for the High Court to ignore those provisions and direct the tenant to pay an arbitrarily assessed rent. Neither the power of judicial review under Article 226 nor the power of superintendence under Article 227, can be exercised in a manner ignoring or violating the specific provisions of a statute. While purporting to exercise the power under Article 227 to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority, the High Court should not itself cross the limits of its authority.
(3.) IN this case, the landlord filed an eviction petition seeking possession on the ground that they bona fide required the suit premises for their own use. The said request was rejected both by the Prescribed Authority and by the Appellate Authority. The landlord therefore approached the High Court challenging the said rejection by filing a writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate Authority and for grant of an order of eviction. There was no prayer for a direction for payment of any rent or for payment of any increased rent. When the grievance in the writ petition was only in regard to refusal of an order of eviction under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, there is no justification for directing payment of a higher rent either pending consideration of the writ petition or otherwise. Even assuming that the High Court has power to increase the rent, we fail to understand how in the absence of any evidence -- either oral or documentary or by way of affidavit, the learned Single Judge could assess the rent as Rs. 12,050 which is more than 48 times, the rent of Rs. 250 earlier determined. The learned Single Judge did not consider any of the relevant circumstances like the market value of the building on the date of letting, prevailing rentals in the locality as on the date of letting, the size or situation or amenities, age of construction, latest assessment of the building or other circumstances. Further, when a premises consisting of several rooms, verandahs, kitchen, terrace, bathrooms, latrines, is let out as a single unit, the question of assessing the rent with reference to each room or portion of such premises separately does not arise. The learned Judge's observation that by taking a pragmatic approach he was assessing the rent at rs. 12,050, to say the least, is arbitrary and contrary to law.;