Kamla Devi vs Sunita Devi

Sanjay Karol, J.—Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that petitioner has made out a case for interference to a limited extent.

Petitioner-landlady filed a petition for ejectment of the respondents-tenants under the provisions of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. One of the grounds taken for ejectment is non payment of rent. According to the petitioner, respondents herein are occupying the premises in question as tenants on a monthly rental of Rs. 1500/-. Respondents seriously contested the petition and more specifically disputed the amount of rent and any default thereof. According to the respondents, rent is Rs. 150/- per month which the petitioner on payment refused to accept.

Appreciating the material so placed on record by the parties, learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, District Hamirpur, H.P., dismissed the petition in toto, vide order dated 20.5.2011, passed in Rent Petition No. 2 of 2006, titled as Kamla Devi vs. Madan Lal Sharma (deceased through his LRs).

Aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred statutory appeal which stands allowed on a limited point by learned Appellate Authority (A.D.J.), Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P., vide judgment dated 24.9.2012, passed in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2011, titled as Kamla Devi vs. Sunita Devi & others, holding the rent of the tenanted premises to be Rs. 150/- per month. Vide impugned order respondents/tenants stand directed to pay arrears of rent alongwith interest.

According to the respondents, amount in terms of impugned order already stands deposited before the learned Rent Controller. Such deposit is till the month of May, 2014.

On the question of amount of monthly rent, in my considered view, no interference is warranted. Undisputedly no rent note has been placed on record by the petitioner. Respondents admit monthly rent to be Rs. 150/-. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, has invited my attention to the judgment dated 25.4.2005 (Ext. P-5), passed by the Appellate Authority, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2004, titled as Madan Lal Sharma vs. Kamla Devi and others, in an earlier round of litigation inter se the parties. In paragraph-18 of the said judgment, to which my specific attention is invited, admission of monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- is that of the land-lord and not the tenant. Significantly in the very same decision, the authority noted the tenants'' submission of rent being Rs. 150/- per month.

As such, I find no reason to interfere with the findings on the question of monthly rent to be Rs. 150/-, so passed by the lower Appellate Authority.

Mr. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, points out that authorities below erred in not according benefits of provisions of Section 4 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Rent so determined ought to have been on the amount to be enhanced after a period of every five years commencing from the year 1990. Also petitioner ought to have been awarded interest on such enhanced amount of rent.

It is true that in the petition, petitioner specifically did not pray for such relief, but however it is a statutory right of a land-lord and corresponding obligation of a tenant to pay the enhanced sum. Also authorities are duty bound to enforce the provisions of the statute. As such, impugned order needs to be modified. It is ordered that petitioner shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of rent, as also interest thereupon, in terms of statutory provisions, w.e.f. December, 1995. Such enhancement shall be after every five years. It is further clarified that respondents shall clear the arrears along with up to date interest, within a period of eight weeks from today.

Petition stands disposed of, as also pending application(s), if any.