- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Writ Petition has been filed by the tenant I. B. P. Company Limited, and is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31-12-1993 under Section 29-A (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 fixing the rent of the tenanted accommodation at Rs. 19528. 50p. Review against the said order was dismissed on 15-9-1994. Said order is also challenged through the writ petition.
(2.) FOR non-payment of the amount of rent fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer landlord M. L. Dudeja filed S. C. C. Suit No. 38 of 1997 against the tenant I. B. P. Company Ltd. FOR eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The revision is directed against an interim order passed in the said suit. In these cases on the persuasion of the Court learned Counsel for the parties, after consulting their clients, agreed in principle to settle the dispute through compromise. The matter was heard on 3 or 4 dates. With regard to some of the terms of compromise, parties agreed. However in respect of other terms of the compromise parties were at issue, hence, these points are to be decided through judgment of the Court. Accordingly this judgment is partly on the basis of compromise and partly it is decision of the Court. Such a course is an extension of the doctrine of Court sponsored compromise embodied in Section 89 C. P. C. (introduced in the year June 2000 ). Such procedural innovation is permissible while hearing writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Parties agreed for fixation of monthly rent in between Rs. 10,000 to 13,000 (exact amount to be determined by the Court ). Landlord agreed to withdraw the suit. Tenant was directed to pay tentative arrears of rent @ Rs. 10,000 per month. Tenant handed over draft of Rs. 18 lacs and eight hundred seventy nine drawn in favour of the landlord to the learned Counsel for the landlord on 1-3-2006 in Court.
(3.) TODAY learned Counsel for both the parties have vehemently argued on the aspect of rent. According to the learned Counsel for the tenant even Rs. 10,000 per month rent would be more than required and according to the learned Counsel for the landlord even Rs. 13,000 per month rent would be on the lower side. Thus this question is to be decided by this Court. Learned Counsel for the landlord also states that landlord is entitled to the interest on the unpaid rent and the argument has further been elaborated by taking resort to the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. By virtue of the said sub-section if the suit for eviction of the tenant has been filed on the ground of default then the tenant can escape the liability of eviction in case he deposits the entire rent on the first date of hearing alongwith cost of the suit and 9 per cent per annum interest on unpaid rent. Learned Counsel for the landlord has also stated that in the suit he had paid Court fees of about Rs. 50,000. Learned Counsel for the tenant denies his liability to pay these amounts. This is also an area of dispute requiring adjudication by the Court.;