- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. The present writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in respect of an accommodation which was let out to the petitioner initially at the rent of Rs. 40 per month on 15. 11. 1971 and it was enhanced to Rs. 115 per month on 1. 2. 1972, as some more accommodation was added. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced in the month of June, 1978 to Rs. 160 per month. The accommodation In question is situate in Narainpur Kasba Auraiya wherein office of Weight and Measurement Department is located.
(2.) AN application giving rise to the present writ petition was filed by Smt. Mula Devi, respondent No. 3 herein, on 13. 12. 1984 under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for fixing its rent at Rs. 400 per month. It was registered as Case No. 29 of 1986. The said application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Mula Devi, the landlady has entered into an agreement on 11. 9. 1984 whereby it was provided that since 1. 6. 1983 to 31. 5. 1988, the rent at the rate of Rs. 160 per month would be payable. On the strength of the said agreement, it was pleaded that the application for enhancement, under Section 21 (8) of the Act is not maintainable. It was stated that the landlady is not entitled to make application for enhancement of the rent. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 3. 8. 1987 enhanced the rent to Rs. 322 on the basis of the Rent Control Inspector's report. The said order was challenged in appeal, both by the petitioner as well as by the landlady. These appeals were numbered as Appeals No. 11 of 1987 and 13 of 1987. Both these appeals were allowed by a common judgment dated 21. 3. 1988 on the ground that the rent of the building in question should be fixed in accordance with the formula as provided under Section 21 (8) of the Act, i. e. , commensurate to the market value of the property in question. After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by his order dated 30. 9. 1992, fixed the monthly rent at Rs. 400, although he found that as per the market value, the rent comes more than that. This order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was challenged in appeal, being Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1992. The appellate court by the impugned order dated 5. 9. 1998, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and fixed the rent at Rs. 1,611 per month w. e. f. the date of filing of the application, i. e. , 13. 12. 1984. Challenging the aforesaid appellate order, the present writ petition is at the instance of State of U. P. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Tiwari, advocate for the landlady, respondent No. 3. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that there is no dispute between the parties that on 11. 9. 1984 an agreement was entered into between the parties and it was agreed that from 1. 6. 1983 to 31. 5. 1988, the tenant will be liable to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 160 to the landlady. The said agreement, in my view, is final and binding on the parties. No doubt, remedy for enhancement of rent is available to such landlords who have let out their building to State Government or a local authority or to a Public Sector Corporation or to a Recognised Educational Institution vide sub section (8) of Section 21 of the Act. Sub-section (8) of Section 21 confers right on such landlords. The said right can be waived by a landlord. No public policy is involved in Section 21 (8) of the Act which may prevent a landlord to waive his right under that section. The right given to such landlord is his personal right.
(3.) THE Apex Court in Martin and Harris Ltd. v. Vlth Additional District Judge and others, 1998 (1) ARC 109 : 1998 (1) AWC 580 (SC), with reference to Section 21 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, has held that a tenant or a landlord can waive the benefit conferred by an Act. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to agree with the view of the appellate court that notwithstanding the fact that an agreement was entered into by the landlady fixing the rent at Rs. 160 per month for the period as stated above, still she can apply for enhancement of the rent under Section 21 (8) of the Act. The agreement entered into by the landlady amounts to waiver of her right conferred on her under Section 21 (8) of the Act. This is one aspect of the case.;