# Smt. Har Piari Devi Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 439
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41552 of 1997
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-har-piari-devi-gupta-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39938
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- Section 21 (8)-
Enhancement of Rent- market value
assessed as Rs.921498/- enhancement
of rent from Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- not
proper is can not be less than1/12 of the
10% of market value-direction issue for
reconsideration.

Held- Para 3

The
Prescribed
Authority
and
the
Appellate Authority having come to the
conclusion that the market value of the
accommodation
in
question
being
Rs.9,21,498/-, the enhancement to the
extent to Rs.2,000/- by the Appellate
Authority is non-application of mind and
therefore deserves to be set aside and
rent should be fixed according to the
formula given under the Statute i.e.
Rs.12th of 10 percent of the market
value. 1/10 of the market value comes to
Rs.92149/- and 1/12 of this amount i.e.
Rs.9,21,498/- comes to roughly about
seventy six thousand and odd per month.
Since both the authorities have already
arrived at the conclusion that the market
value of the accommodation in question
under
the
tenancy
would
be
Rs.9,21,498/-, there was absolutely no
justification
in
not
fixing
the
rent
payable on the basis of the aforesaid
formula. The orders dated 21.11.1996
and
1.9.1997
passed
by
Prescribed
Authority
therefore
deserve
to
be
quashed to the extent the version of the
quantum of the rent payable by the
respondent-tenant.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Smt. Har Piari Devi Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others
439
of three months from the date a certified
copy of this order is served upon him.

6. What has been stated above, the
petition is allowed. The order of the
revisional court is quashed and the matter
is remanded back to the trial court. The
trial court is directed to decide the matter
within a period of three months from the
date a certified copy of this order is
served upon him, on the basis of evidence
on record and the observations made by
the revisional court after affording an
opportunity to the land lord as well as to
the tenant.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41552 of 1997

Smt. Har Piari Devi Gupta and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Dhan Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- Section 21 (8)-
Enhancement of Rent- market value
assessed as Rs.921498/- enhancement
of rent from Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- not
proper is can not be less than1/12 of the
10% of market value-direction issue for
reconsideration.

Held- Para 3

The
Prescribed
Authority
and
the
Appellate Authority having come to the
conclusion that the market value of the
accommodation
in
question
being
Rs.9,21,498/-, the enhancement to the
extent to Rs.2,000/- by the Appellate
Authority is non-application of mind and
therefore deserves to be set aside and
rent should be fixed according to the
formula given under the Statute i.e.
Rs.12th of 10 percent of the market
value. 1/10 of the market value comes to
Rs.92149/- and 1/12 of this amount i.e.
Rs.9,21,498/- comes to roughly about
seventy six thousand and odd per month.
Since both the authorities have already
arrived at the conclusion that the market
value of the accommodation in question
under
the
tenancy
would
be
Rs.9,21,498/-, there was absolutely no
justification
in
not
fixing
the
rent
payable on the basis of the aforesaid
formula. The orders dated 21.11.1996
and
1.9.1997
passed
by
Prescribed
Authority
therefore
deserve
to
be
quashed to the extent the version of the
quantum of the rent payable by the
respondent-tenant.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. These two writ petitions, namely,
writ petition no.41552 of 1997 and 11836
of 2001 filed by petitioner, Smt. Har Piari
Devi Gupta and the land lord, the State of
U.P.
through
Collector,
Moradabad
challenging the orders passed by the
Prescribed Authority as well as by the
Appellate Authority under the provision
of Section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972, hereinafter shall be referred to as
the Act, since raise common question of
facts and law, thus being disposed of by
this common judgement together.

2. The facts leading to the filing of
present writ petition being writ petition
no. 41552 of 1997 are that the Respondent
no. 1 (petitioner in writ petition no. 11838
of 2001) is admittedly tenant of the
aforesaid accommodation in question.
The
petitioner
land
lord
filed
an
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
440
application under Section 21 (8) of the
Act with the prayer that the rent be
enhanced.
The
said
application
for
enhancement of the rent has been decided
by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer
(Prescribed Authority) holding that the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are
applicable and according to the evidence
on record, there are sufficient grounds to
enhance the rent of the accommodation in
question, whose market value has been
assessed to Rs.9,21,498/- and in view of
the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972,
the enhanced rent has been fixed as
Rs.2,000/- per month, which shall be
payable by the tenant since 1.9.1990. It is
on this ground, the application filed by the
petitioner-land lord was allowed in part.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
the petitioner- land lord preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Authority and
Appellate Authority accepted the market
value to be Rs.9 lacs and odd and has
enhanced the rent from Rs.2,000/- to
Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.9.1990. It is
these two orders, which have been
challenged by the petitioner- land lord on
the ground that according to the provision
of Section 21 (8) of the proviso, the rent
should be enhanced to 1/12th of 10 per
cent of the current market value. The
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate
Authority having come to the conclusion
that
the
market
value
of
the
accommodation
in
question
being
Rs.9,21,498/- the enhancement to the
extent to Rs.2,000/- by the Prescribed
Authority and Rs.4,000/- per month by
the Appellate Authority is non application
of mind and therefore deserves to be set
aside and rent should be fixed according
to the formula given under the Statute i.e.
1/12th of 10 per cent of the market value.
1/10th of the market value comes to
Rs.92,149/- and 1/12 of this amount i.e.
Rs.9,21,498/- comes to roughly about
seventy six thousand and odd per month.
Since both the authorities have already
arrived at the conclusion that the market
value of the accommodation in question
under the tenancy would be Rs.9,21,498/-,
there was absolutely no justification in not
fixing the rent payable on the basis of the
aforesaid formula. The orders dated
21.11.1996 and 1.9.1997 passed by
Prescribed Authority as well as by the
Appellate
Authority,
respectively,
therefore deserves to be quashed to the
extent the version of the quantum of the
rent payable by the respondent - tenant.

4. I am in full agreement with the
arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner- land lord. The orders
dated 21.11.1996 and 1.9.1997 passed by
Prescribed Authority as well as by the
Appellate
Authority
deserve
to
be
quashed to the extent that the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer shall fix the
rent on the basis of the market value
arrived at and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority with effect from the date when
the order was passed i.e. from 21.11.1996
taking market value as Rs.9,21,498/- and
fixed the rent payable calculating at the
rate of 1/12th of 10 per cent of the
aforesaid market value per month w.e.f.
21.11.1996.

5. In view of what has been stated
above, both the writ petitions are allowed.
The orders dated 21.11.1996 are hereby
quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction
Officer is directed to calculate and fix the
rent
taking
the
market
value
as
Rs.9,21,498/- and 1/12 th of 10 per cent
of the aforesaid market value with effect
from the date when the original order
passed
i.e.
on
21.11.1996.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Smt. Boby Devi V. Kiran Pal Singh
441
In the result both the writ petitions
are allowed. Order accordingly. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.R.YADAV, J.
THE HON'BLE Y.R. TRIPATHI, J.

First Appeal from order No. 348 of 2002

Smt. Boby Devi

 ...Appellant
Versus
Kiran Pal Singh

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K.M. Garg
Sri Amit Daga

Counsel for the Respondent:

Family Courts Act 1984- Section 10
readwith order 43 r.(i) (d) CPC- suit for
Restitution of conjugal rights decreed ex
parte - application under order 9 r. 13
rejected-
against
that
Appeal
held
maintainable.

Held - para 8 and 9

There is yet another reason to arrive at
the aforesaid conclusion. Sub Section (1)
of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984 provides that save as provided in
sub- section (2) and notwithstanding
any other law, an appeal shall lie from
every judgement or order, not being an
interlocutory order of a Family Court to
the High Court both on facts and on law.
From bare reading of sub section (1) of
Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, it is
crystal
clear
that
an
appeal
is
maintainable against every judgement or
order passed by a Family court provided
it is mot an interlocutory order. As a
matter of fact, an appeal is prohibited
against interlocutory order and consent
decree or order passed by Family Courts.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1978 SC 47, AIR 1933 PC 58
AIR 1970 SC 406

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.R. Yadav, J.)

1. The present appeal is filed under
section `19 of the Family Courts Act
against the order dated 14.5.2002 passed
by the Family Court, Meerut whereby the
Family Court has rejected the application
of the appellant moved under order IX
Rule 13 C.P.C. read with Section 151
C.P.C.

2. When the aforesaid appeal was
presented in the Registry, the office has
raised an objection to its maintainability
in view of section 19 (5) of the Family
Courts Act.

3. The learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri K.M. Garg contended that
the present appeal is maintainable within
the meaning of section 19 of the Family
Courts Act and the office report deserves
to be overruled.

4. We have given our thoughtful
consideration to the argument raised by
Sri Garg, learned counsel for appellant
and we are of the opinion that there is
substance in the argument raised by the
learned counsel for appellant. The office
report deserves to be overruled for the
reasons given here in below.

5. A close scrutiny of section 10 of
Family Courts Act clearly provides that
subject to the other provisions of this Act
and the Rules the provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and of any other
law for the time being in force shall apply
to the suits and proceedings other than the