S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlords writ petition. They purchased the shop in dispute through registered sale deed dated 3.12.1975. Respondent No. 3, Bhagwan Swaroop Halwai, was continuing as its tenant since before its purchase. On 22.5.1980 respondent No. 3 filed an application for fixation of rent under Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The case was registered as Case No. 106 of 1980 on the file of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly. Landlords came up with the case that respondent No. 3 had orally agreed to pay the rent @ Rs. 390/- per month. By order dated 14.4.1984 Rent Control and Eviction Officer fixed the rent @ Rs. 24/- per month. Respondent No. 3 had not stated that what rent he was paying to the previous landlord or what rent he paid to the petitioners after he purchased the same. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has argued that previously there were three shops in his tenancy occupation and combined rent of the same was Rs. 200/- per month and two of the said shops were purchased by respondent No. 3 himself. Against the order dated 14.4.1984 Rent Control Appeal No. 116 of 1984 was filed which was dismissed by Vlth A.D.J., Bareilly on 1.8.1985, hence this writ petition. Landlord had also filed suit for eviction being SCC Suit No 7 of 1980. In the said suit rent @ Rs. 390/- per month was demanded since 3.12.1975. However, suit was dismissed against which Civil Revision No. 1085 of 1987 was filed in this Court. The said Civil Revision was dismissed in default on 20.2.2006 the date on which arguments were heard in this writ petition.
(2.) Applicability of Section 9 of the Act is some what doubtful to the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the definition of "standard rent" under Section 2(k) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and several corresponding provisions under different sections of the Act including Section 9 thereof, have been declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India in M.C. Jain v. State of U.P., 2001 (2) ARC 488.
(3.) Tenant was admittedly continuing as tenant since before purchase of the properly by the petitioner. At maximum it could be a case of apportionment of rent. In any case rent of Rs. 24/- per month by today's standard is virtually as well as actually no rent. Even rent of Rs. 390/- per month from today's standard is quite inadequate. Under Rent Control Act apart from Section 9 there is no provision for fixation of reasonable rent. There is no provision of periodical enhancement of rent also. After the lapse of so much time I do not consider it appropriate to remand the matter. In my opinion ends of justice would be best served by deciding the matter finally.;