- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 10.9.2010 upholding the orders dated 12.9.2005 and 30.9.2005 passed in Rent Case No. 14/2002 whereby the disputed premises was declared vacant under section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") and the release order under section 16(1)(b) of the Act was passed in favour of the landlord. By order dated 12.9.2005 vacancy was declared with respect to the disputed premises by the prescribed authority. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 63670 of 2005 wherein this Court passed the following order dated 30.9.2005: This writ petition is directed against the vacancy declaration order dated 12.9.2005. Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondents states that thereafter building in dispute has been released in their favour. Accordingly, it is directed that unless ordered otherwise for a period of six months petitioner shall not be evicted from the property in dispute provided that with effect from October, 2005 onward they pay rent to the landlords-respondents at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month by 7th of each succeeding month through money order after deducting M.O. charges. In case of two defaults stay order shall stand automatically vacated. Nonpayment of this amount may also be a ground for dismissal of the writ petition. On 3.11.2006 this Court passed the following order in the said writ petition; Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears from the record that the disputed accommodation consisting of four rooms situated on the ground floor of House No. 98/182, Kallumall Ka Bagicha, Nala Road, Kanpur Nagar was given to the petitioners for residential purposes. This is disputed by the Counsel for the petitioners. However, they have two shops and four rooms in their possession. It also appears from the report of Rent Control Inspector that the petitioners have purchased some part of the disputed accommodation where the shops are situated and they use 4 rooms in storing the Bhusa, Chokar, Chuni and other goods. The petitioners have come up in this writ petition against the order of declaring vacancy. The matter regarding declaring vacancy has been referred by this Court to a Larger Bench. The Counsel for the respondents submits that when the petitioners have acquired their own house and have changed the user, the order of declaring vacancy has rightly been passed by the authority below. Since the matter has already been referred to a Larger Bench by this Court, it would be appropriate to increase the rent of the disputed accommodation pending decision of the writ petition. A pragmatic approach has to be taken considering the location and rate of rent prevailing in the locality etc. With passage of time value of house rent has increased and as such it has to be proportionately increased in addition to notional increase of 10% in rent every 5 years as provided under Act No. XIII of 1972. In view of the decisions rendered in Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005 1 ARC 526; Hari Mohan Kichlu v. VIIIth A.D.J. Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 2 ARC 652, wherein rent was increased to more than 28 times and in Khurshida v. A.D.J., 2004 2 ARC 64, wherein the rent was increased about fifty times, the writ Court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent as has also been held by this Court in para 7 of Smt. Zohra v. IVth A.D.J. Jhansi, 2006 2 ARC 256, that while granting relief to a tenant against eviction the writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent. Taking a pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case location as well as area of the accommodation etc. the rent of the disputed accommodation is increased in the following manner. At the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month for each room i.e., for 4 rooms, 4 x Rs. 1,500 = Rs. 6,000/- per month. The rent of November, 2006 as fixed by this Court shall be payable by 7th December, 2006. It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month towards rent to the landlords till further orders which shall be payable to the landlords thereafter by 7th day of each succeeding month. The rent fixed by this Court shall be increased 10% every 5 years till further orders according to the provisions of the Act. In case of default in payment of the arrears of rent, if any at the current rent as directed by this Court the landlord can get the disputed accommodation vacated with the help of police within a period of one month by giving notice in writing. List in the month of April, 2007. The Counsel for the parties shall submit compliance report on that date. Thereafter, the aforementioned writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 13.8.2007 for want of prosecution. For ready reference, the said order is quoted hereinbelow; Sri Tarun Gaur holding brief of Sri S.C. Madhyan informed the Court that the client is not responding. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner in order to avoid the payment of enhanced rent as fixed by this Court on 13.11.2006 chose not to pursue the Writ Petition No. 63670 of 2005 filed against the vacancy order dated 12.9.2005.
(3.) The perusal of the record reveals that during the pendency of the writ petition No. 63670 of 2005, the petitioner also filed a revision against the orders dated 12.9.2005 (declaration of vacancy) as well as 30.9.2005 (release order) under section 18 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 before the District Judge and the same was also dismissed by the revisional Court by order dated 10.9.2010. It is not disputed that the Writ Petition No. 63670 of 2005 filed earlier by the petitioner against the vacancy order dated 12.9.2005 with respect to the disputed premises stood dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.8.2007. It is also not disputed that the said order dated 13.8.2007 has not yet been recalled or set aside, as such, the order dated 12.9.2005 declaring vacancy of the disputed premises stood confirmed. In this view of the matter, this Court cannot again re-examine the validity of the order dated 12.9.2005 which was the subject-matter of the earlier Writ Petition No. 63670 of 2005 which was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 13.8.2007.;