RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. BACKDROP. The question raised by the counsels for the landlords who have filed these petitions is regarding enhancement of rent by interim orders or final decisions.
(2.) CONSIDERING the fact that rental value of the land and building (including residential accommodation as well as the commercial buildings) under the tenancy has increased many folds. This Court by interim order in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution in some writ petitions wherein they had lost from the Court below increased the rent/damages in writ petitions filed by the landlords to do equitable and substantial justice between the parties. Interim orders were passed on the basis of plinth area, nature and material used in construction average rent prevalent in the locality etc. and the class of city. The interim orders were passed in the petitions where the landlords had lost in the Court below, directing the tenant to pay enhanced rent at par with the market rent as the Court felt that whatever may have been the dispute in the Court below the owner/landlord must get the real rental value for his building particularly when the rent freezed at the level of year 1972. Under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Rent Act) in view of various decisions of the Courts on the subject and there being no analogous provisions to Section 21(8) for enhancement of the aforesaid Rent Act in respect of landlords and owners of buildings otherwise than public buildings etc. covered by the aforesaid Section 21(8) of the Act.
(3.) SIMILARLY relying upon the decisions of this Court reported in 2004(2) ARC 268 Vishram v. III Additional District Judge, Aligarh as well as in 2004(2) ARC 349 : 2005(2) ARC 726 Gopal Prasad Agrawal v. Mahendra Singh Chaudhary and others, directions were given for enhancement of rent or for payment of damages in case the possession of a person is found to be unauthorized occupancy.;