- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel who has filed the review petition. Original review petition is not available on record even though affidavit filed in support thereof (Bearing No. 49239 of 2007) is avail able. Learned Counsel has supplied duplicate copy which is taken on record and treated to be original.
(2.) WRIT petition filed by the landlord was dismissed by me on 22. 1. 2007. Arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard on 12. 1. 1997. On the said date, no one appeared on behalf of the tenant respondent. Even though I dismissed the writ petition but I enhanced the rent to Rs. 1, 000/- per month w. e. f. January, 2007. Previously the rent was Rs. 35/- per month (as stated by learned Counsel for the tenant respondent ). In my judgment, I mentioned that rent was less than Rs. 100/- per month. The grievance of the tenant is that rent has wrongly been enhanced. It has been stated in para 3 of the affidavit filed in support review petition that since 1980, rent @ Rs. 35/- per month is being paid. The only ground taken in the affidavit is that rent was enhanced to Rs. 1, 000/- per month as landlord's Counsel wrongly stated that rate of rent of Rs. 100/- per month. In fact, as noted in the judgment dated 22. 1. 1007, learned Counsel for the landlord had stated that rate of rent was less than Rs. 100/- per month. As I observed in my judgment dated 22. 1. 1007, accommodation in dispute consists of one room, verandah, common kitchen, latrine and bathroom and is situate in Kanpur, which is most expensive city of U. P. In the accommodation in dispute, tenant is residing alongwith his family and is also doing some busi ness. I have held in Khursheeda v. AD. J. , 2004 (55) ALR 596 and H. M. Kichlu v. A. D. J. , 2004 (57) ALR 485 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building cov ered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the Courts below, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reason able extent. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court Authority of M. V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 6021=1998 SCFBRC 75 where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court has further held that frozen rents are giving rise to lawlessness and landlords out of frustration are approaching muscle man to et the premises vacated and Courts of law are be coming redundant in this sphere. This authority has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) by L. Rs. v. Union of India and another, (2008) 5 SCC 287=2008 (71) ALR 499 (SC)=2008 (65) AIC 1 (SC) part of Para 29 and Para 34 of which are quoted below: "29. It is trite to say that legislation which may be quite reasonable and rationable at the time of its enactment may with the lapse of time and/or due to change of circumstances become arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the doctrine of equity and even if the validity of such legisla tion may have been upheld at a given point of time, the Court may, in sub sequent litigation, strike down the same if it is found that the rationale of classification has become non-existent. 34. In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra), the Court found that the criteria for de termination and fixation of rent by freezing or by pegging down or rent as on 1. 9. 1940 or as to first date of letting, had, with the passage of time become irrational and arbitrary but did not strike down the same on the ground that extended period of Bombay Rent Act was coming to an end on 31. 3. 1998. "
(3.) UNDER U. P. Rent Control Act, there is no provision of enhancement of rent after October, 1972 (Except where landlord is public charitable or public religious institution (Section 9-A) or Government is tenant (Section 21 (8 ). In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda, I have also placed reliance upon the au thority of Supreme Court in Shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1996 SC 2410=1996 SCFBRC 472 Paragraph 11 of which is quoted below: "it is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction un der Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the par ties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can taken into account the un fair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain be fore granting relief. " Thereafter in Para 8 of the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda, I held as under: "rent Control Act confers a reasonable advantage upon the tenant of protection against arbitrary eviction. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bonafide need of the land lord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alternation etc. This advan tage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equi table. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of S. F. C. v. L. I. C. , AIR 1996 SC 2410 has laid down that while granting relief to a party the Writ Court can very well ask the said party to shed the unfair advantage which it gained under the impugned order. By slightly extending the said doctrine it may safely be held that while granting the reasonable advantage to the tenant conferred upon him by the Rent Control Act the tenant may be asked to shed the unreasonable arbitrary advantage conferred upon him by the said Rent Control Act. The Writ Court therefore, while granting or maintaining the relief against arbitrary ejectment to the tenant can very well ask the tenant to shed the un-reasonable benefit of the Rent Control Act granted to him in the form of immunity against enhancement of rent, however inadequate the rent might be. Tenant will have to shed the undue advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Act to barter his protection from arbitrary eviction provided for by the said Act. ";