D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh for the contesting respondent.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against a revisional order dated 15.7.2005 by which an application moved under section 17 of the Small Cause Court Act by the petitioner has been rejected after setting aside the order of the Trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment before Judge, Small Cause Court on the basis of default of the peti­tioner and the same was decreed ex parte on 15.2.2003 and when the decree was put into execution, the petitioner moved an application for recalling the said order along with section 5 application. The petitioner also deposited Rs. 10816/- as entire decreetal amount on 19.2.2004. Objection was filed by the respondent-landlord showing that there was short deposit of Rs. 237/- which the petitioner immediately deposited and the Trial Court holding substantial compliance allowed the application. On revision, the said order has been set aside holding that section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is mandatory provisions and since it was not complied, the Trial Court did not have any jurisdiction to recall the order.
(3.) WHEN this writ petition was filed, the following order was passed on 16.8.2007. "Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Counsel for the respondent-landlords states that the petitioner is tenant of the disputed house No. 64-A/7 situated in the campus of Bungalow No. 64, Chappel Street, Meerut Cantt. and is paying rent of Rs. 300/- per month. He further submits that the rent of the disputed shop is too low in the present scenario. He prays that in the circumstances the rent of the dis­puted shop may be increased reasonably according to the market rate. In view of the decisions rendered in Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005 (1) ARC 526 Hari Mohan Kichlu v. VIIIth A.D.J., Muzaffarnagar and oth­ers, 2004 (57) ALR 485 wherein rent was increased to more than 28 times and in Khurshida v. A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC 64=2004 (54) ALR 177 wherein the rent was increased about fifty times, the Writ Court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent as has also been held by this Court in para 7 of Smt. Zohra v. IVth A.D.J., Jhansi 2006 (63) ALR 643. That while granting relief to a tenant against eviction the Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, location as well as area of the accommodation and construction etc. the rent of the disputed house is increased to Rs. 1000/- per month. The rent of August, 2007 as fixed by this Court shall be payable in September, 2007. The rent of in respect of the aforesaid disputed room in question appears to be inadequate rent for the accommodation in dispute. A pragmatic approach has to be taken considering the area location and rate of rent prevailing in the locality etc. with passage of time value of house rent has increased and as such it has to be proportionately increased in addition to notional increase of 10% in rent every 5 years as provided under Act No. XIII of 1972. It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/-per month towards rent to the landlords till further orders which shall be payable to the landlord thereafter by 7th day of each succeeding month. In case of default in payment of current rent as directed by this Court, the landlords may move an application for recovery of arrears of rent treat­ing this order as 'certificate of recovery' and may also move the S.S.P. con­cerned for eviction of the tenants by the police force as this stay order is be­ing passed on condition of enhancement of payment of rent by the tenants during the pendency of the writ petition month to month regularly. List after three months. The Counsel for the parties shall submit com­pliance report on that date." ;