Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) LANDLADY -respondent No. 3 Smt. Annapurna Devi filed suit for eviction against tenant -petitioner only on the ground of default. The suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 8 of 1985 on the file of JSCC/Munsif, Shahjahanpur. On the first date of hearing i.e. 9.5.1985 tenant -petitioner deposited the entire rent, the cost and interest etc. as required by section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thereafter, suit was dismissed in default. Against the said order restoration application was filed which was allowed on 10.12.1989 and judgment and order through which suit was dismissed in default was set aside. Against the said order revision was filed which was dismissed on 6.3.1991. Thereafter, proceedings in the suit continued. In the suit landlady filed application for striking off the defence of tenant on 25.3.1991. Trial Court on 13.9.1991 struck off the defence of the tenant. Against the said order tenant -petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 74 of 1991. IIIrd A.D.J., Shahjahanpur through judgment and order dated 27.11.1991 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition. There was no sense in striking off the defence as the only point involved in the suit was as to whether tenant was entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act on the ground that he had deposited the entire amount of rent, interest and cost etc. on the first date of hearing of the suit or not. Even if defence has been struck off tenant is entitled to the protection of the aforesaid provision as it is statutory requirement. Deposit of rent under section 20(4) of the Act is actually not a defence but acceptance of the case of the landlord, unless tenant disputes the rate of rent or period of default as mentioned in the plaint. In the instant case Trial Court as well as Revisional Court categorically held that plaintiff did not dispute that the amount deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing was complete. The Courts below also recorded categorical finding to that effect.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is allowed both the impugned orders are set aside. Supreme Court in M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1998 SC 602, has held that Rent Control Act shall provide for periodical enhancement of rent. The Supreme Court has also noticed in the said judgment that absence of such a provision is resulting in frustration among landlords and they are resorting either to extra judicial measures for evicting the tenants or selling the property to the tenants or to other persons on highly inadequate consideration. In another authority in S.F. Products v. L.I.C. : AIR 1996 SC 2410, the Supreme Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India High Court can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. It has further been held that writ jurisdiction is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principle of equity. Following the said authorities I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. : 2004 (55) ALR 586, that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. In another authority in H.M. Kitchlu v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 652, I held that even while dismissing the writ petition of the landlord Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent as while dismissing the writ petition of the landlord Writ Court approves the benefit of Rent Control Act granted to the tenant by the Courts below.
(3.) THERE is no reason as to why the aforesaid principle of enhancement of rent by the Writ Court cannot be applied while remanding the matter to the Court below or while deciding the writ petition directed against interim orders e.g. striking off the defence or restoration matters. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from October, 2005 onward tenant -petitioner shall pay rent to the landlady -respondent at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month in view of the fact that property in dispute is a shop situate in a city and rent of Rs. 82/ - per month for such building is highly inadequate. This enhanced rent shall be paid with effect from October, 2005 onward irrespective of the result of the suit.;