Central Bank of India vs District Judge, Gorakhpur and others

Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed by the Central Bank of India for setting aside the order dated 24th December, 1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority on the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (8) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') as well as the order dated 14th March, 1997 by which the Appeal filed by the petitionerBank under section 22 of the Act was dismissed.

The application had been filed by the landlordrespondent No. 3 for enhancement of the rent from 4,450/ to Rs. 23,842.75/. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application by the order dated 24th December, 1996 and enhanced the rent to Rs. 23,842.75 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.

Sri S.N. Varma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (8) of the Act was not maintainable since the building was exempted from the operation of the Act in view of the provisions of 2 (1) (g) of the Act which stipulates that the Act shall not apply to a building whose rent exceeds Rs. 2,000/. Sri J.P. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, however, submitted that under section 21 (8) of the Act, the landlord can file an application for enhancement of the rent of a building let out to a Public Sector Corporation and, therefore, the provisions of section 2 (1) (g) of the Act will not apply.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Section 2 (1) of the Act deals with exemptions from operation of the Act and section 2 (1) (g) provides that the Act shall not apply to any building whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2000/.

In the present case, admittedly, the rent of the building is Rs. 4450/. Thus, in view of the provisions of section 2 (1) (g) of the Act, the Act will not apply to the building in question. The application for enhancement of the rent filed under section 21 (8) of the Act by the landlord is, therefore, not maintainable and the applications filed by the landlord was liable to be rejected.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Zafar Ibrahim v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow and others, 2007 (68) ALR 366 (HCL.B.) and State of U.P. and another v. Sri Jugal Kishore, 2007 (68) ALR 47 (HC). in support of his contention that the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (8) of the Act is maintainable. These decisions do not help the respondents because the rate of monthly rent of the building in both these cases is less than Rs. 2000/.

The order dated 24th December, 1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the order dated 14th March, 1997 passed by the Appellate Authority therefore, deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The application filed by the landlord under section 21 (8) of the Act is rejected.