- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This writ petition by the tenant Nagar Palika Parishad Pilkhuwa, Ghaziabad has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 1-9-1994 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 66 of 1994, Trust Dharmshala Lala Ganga Sahai Ji v. Nagar Palika Pilkhuwa, whereby the appeal was allowed and the rent of the shop in dispute was enhanced to Rs. 2083. 30 w. e. f. 1-3-1986 under the provisions of Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE dispute relates to Shop No. 120 Gandhi Bazar Pilkhuwa, District Ghaziabad which is owned by Trust Dharamshala Ganga Sahai respondent No. 3. THE shop had been let out to the petitioner for commercial purpose from before 1935 at a monthly rent of Rs. 20 per month. THE landlord filed an application for enhancement of rent on 10-2-1986 and claimed monthly rent at Rs. 2,083. 30 on the basis of the market value of the shop which was claimed to be Rs. 2,50,000 relying upon a valuation report. This was registered as Case No. 8 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur. THE Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 12-7-1993 held that the application for enhancement was not under Section 21 (8) of the Act but was under Section 9 (A) of the Act and it accordingly enhanced the rent from Rs. 20 to Rs. 40 per month. Aggrieved by the said order the landlord filed review application, which was an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 66 of 1994. Vide order dated 1-9- 1994 the appellate Court held that the application was under Section 21 (8) of the Act and the Sub- Divisional Officer has wrongly held that it was under Section 9 (A) of the Act. Further the appellate Court after considering the objections of the petitioner and the material on record came to the conclusion that the market value of the building in question was Rs. 2,50,000 and accordingly the monthly rent of Rs. 2,083. 30. claimed by the landlord was just, proper and correct. It accordingly allowed the appeal and enhanced the rent to Rs. 2,083. 03 per month, w. e. f 1-3-1986 in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 21 (8) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition was filed in the year 1994 whereupon this Court granted interim order, staying the operation of the order under challenged. Subsequently vide order dated 14-5-1999 this Court admitted the writ petition and modified the interim order dated 10-11-1994 to the extent that petitioner would deposit half of the arrears of the rent at the rate of Rs. 2,083. 30 per month within a period of six months and shall further pay the current rent at the same rate. The petitioner has enjoyed the interim order for the last more than ten years and the landlord has not been paid any rent till date as the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders of this Court.
(3.) I have heard Sri G. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta learned Counsel for the respondent Trust. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that firstly the appeal filed by the landlord, respondent against the order dated 12-7-1993 taking help of the order passed on the review application on 15-2-1994 was barred by time and therefore, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The second contention is that the provisions of Section 9 (A) of the Act were applicable as the landlord was public charitable trust; the appellate Court illegally held that the application for enhancement of rent was under Section 21 (8) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases : (1) 1997 R. D. 562, Smt. Shiv Raji & Ors. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. (2) 2004 (102) FLR 805, Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Akola & Ors. v. Laxmi Kant Balkrishna Joshi & Ors. . (3) 1983 ARC 29, Surya Narain Nigam v. Shamshed Ali & Anr. (4) 1983 ARC 459, Maqbool Hussain v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly & Ors.;