# Virendra Kumar Tripathi v. Amit Dua & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 1199 of 2025
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-kumar-tripathi-v-amit-dua-anr-53356
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.Regulation
of
Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Sections 9 &
10 - Rent Control - Petitioner was tenant,
running steel furniture shop - Owner sold
house to respondents - Respondents issued
notice for execution of rent agreement on
revised rent at ₹45,000 per month, no
agreement signed - Respondents filed case
under Section 10 of Act, 2021, rent was
fixed at ₹25,000 per month - Petitioner's
Rent Appeal dismissed, affirming earlier
order - Impugned order - From reading of
proviso to Sections 9(5) and 10 of Act, 2021,
it is clear that in absence of rent agreement,
any dispute over revised rent shall be
decided as per Section 10, considering
prevailing market rent in surrounding area -
There was no tenancy agreement before
Act, 2021, and none was signed after
receiving notice - Rent Authority, considered
rent agreement of same locality which was
₹60,000/month - Rent Authority fixed rent
at ₹25,000 per month based on prevailing
market rates, affirmed by Rent Tribunal -
Thus, Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal
rightly fixed rent as per Section 10 read with
proviso to Section 9(5) of Act, 2021. (Para 4,
13 to 15)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

## Text

268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person of right to life and liberty has to be
given strict interpretation or else many
innocents
might
become
victims
of
discretionary decision-making. Insofar as
taxation statutes are concerned, Article 265
of the Constitute prohibits the State from
extracting tax from the citizens without
authority of law. It is axiomatic that
taxation statute has to be interpreted
strictly because the State cannot at their
whims and fancies burden the citizens
without authority of law. In other words,
when the competent Legislature mandates
taxing certain persons/ certain objects in
certain
circumstances,
it
cannot
be
expanded/ interpreted to include those,
which
were
not
intended
by
the
legislature."

13. In view of above, I hereby direct
that the order passed by the assessing
officer dated 6th October, 2021 shall be
taken to be notice within the meaning of
Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 to enable
the petitioner to file his objections and
place its documents before assessing
officer/
competent
authority
for
its
consideration.

14. The petitioner shall be submitting
his reply alongwith document within a
period of eight weeks from today and
thereafter
assessing
officer/competent
authority shall be giving due consideration
to the objections and documents filed and
opportunity of hearing as well and thus
shall be taking decision afresh within a
further period of four weeks.

15. With these above observations and
directions this petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 268
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 1199 of 2025

Virendra Kumar Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
Amit Dua & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Babu, Ashwaini Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manas Bhargava

Civil
Law
-
U.P.Regulation
of
Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Sections 9 &
10 - Rent Control - Petitioner was tenant,
running steel furniture shop - Owner sold
house to respondents - Respondents issued
notice for execution of rent agreement on
revised rent at ₹45,000 per month, no
agreement signed - Respondents filed case
under Section 10 of Act, 2021, rent was
fixed at ₹25,000 per month - Petitioner's
Rent Appeal dismissed, affirming earlier
order - Impugned order - From reading of
proviso to Sections 9(5) and 10 of Act, 2021,
it is clear that in absence of rent agreement,
any dispute over revised rent shall be
decided as per Section 10, considering
prevailing market rent in surrounding area -
There was no tenancy agreement before
Act, 2021, and none was signed after
receiving notice - Rent Authority, considered
rent agreement of same locality which was
₹60,000/month - Rent Authority fixed rent
at ₹25,000 per month based on prevailing
market rates, affirmed by Rent Tribunal -
Thus, Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal
rightly fixed rent as per Section 10 read with
proviso to Section 9(5) of Act, 2021. (Para 4,
13 to 15)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anil Babu,
5 All. Virendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Amit Dua & Anr.
269
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Sri Manas Bhargava, learned
counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed
with the prayer to set aside order dated
08.08.2024 passed by Rent Tribunal/ADJ
Court No. 17 Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal
No. 34/2024 as well as order dated
31.01.2023 passed by ADM(Judicial) in
case no. 1616/2022 and the Execution order
dated
17.12.2024
passed
by
ADM(Judicial)in
Execution
Case
No.
7221/2024.

3. As only question of law i.e.
interpretation of Section 9 and 10 of the UP
Act No. 16 of 2021(hereinafter, referred to
as, 'Act, 2021') is involved, therefore with
the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, petition is being decided at the
admission stage itself without asking for
counter affidavit.

4. Brief undisputed facts of the case
are that, petitioner was tenant of Sri
Purushotam Lal Arora, who was owner of
House No. 124/239 C Block Govind Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar and petitioner is still running
steel furniture shop in that house. Sri
Purushotam Lal Arora sold out the
aforesaid house to respondents by way of
sale
deed
dated
05.03.2022.
After
purchasing
the
house
in
question,
respondents sent notice dated 01.06.2022 to
petitioner for execution of rent agreement
on revised rent @ Rs. 45,000/- per month,
but no rent agreement could be signed. At
this stage, respondents filed application
under Section 10 of the Act, 2021, which
was registered as Misc. Case No. 1616 of
2022. The said case was allowed vide order
dated 31.01.2023 fixing the rent @ Rs.
25,000/- per month. Against the said order,
petitioner preferred Rent Appeal 34 of
2023, which was rejected vide order dated
08.08.2024 affirming the order dated
31.01.2023 passed by the Rent Authority in
Misc. Case No. 1616 of 2022. Hence,
present petition.

5. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner
submitted that Section 9 and 10 of the Act,
2021 provides for revision of rent. Section
9 of the Act 2021 clearly provides the
formula to revise rent and as per section
9(3) of the Act, 2021 where the premises
have been let out prior to 15.07.1972, it
shall be deemed to have been let out on
15.07.1972 and in case premises has been
let out on or after 15.07.1972, the date of
revision of rent shall be one year after the
date of the commencement of tenancy. It
also provides that in case of residential
accommodation, the rent shall be increased
@ 5 per cent per annum and in case of non
residential premises @ 7 per cent per
annum.

6. In the present case, the building
is non residential, therefore, rent has to be
enhanced @ 7 per cent per annum. He next
submitted that Rent Authority, while
determining the rent in terms of Section 10
of the Act, 2021 has ignored the provision
of Section 9 and only considering the
market rent in the surrounding area has
decided the rent. He next submitted that as
per Section 9(5) of the Act, 2021, in case of
tenancy
entered
into
before
the
commencement of this Act, landlord shall
by notice in writing to tenant, demand the
enhanced rent and the rent so enhanced as
prescribed under Section 9(3) of the Act,
2021 shall be payable within 30 days of
service of notice. He next submitted that
while revising the rent under Section 10 the
Act, 2021, Section 9(3) and 9(5) has to be
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken
into
consideration.
He
lastly
submitted that while determining the rent
under Section 10 of the Act, 2021,
compliance of Section 9(3) is mandatory,
therefore, without considering Section 9(3)
of the Act, 2021, any order passed under
Section 10 of the Act, 2021 is liable to be
set aside.

7. Per contra, Sri Atul Dayal,
learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
respondents submitted that there is no
doubt that Section 9 of the Act, 2021
provides for revision of rent, but that shall
only be applicable in case of rent
agreement between the parties. He next
submitted that as per Section 9(3) of the
Act, 2021, in case of any agreement
between the parties prior to commencement
of the Act, 2021, rent shall be revised in
terms of Section 9(3) of the Act, 2021. He
further submitted that if there is no tenancy
agreement prior to commencement of the Act,
2021 and after sending of notice, if the tenant
and landlord fails to execute the tenancy
agreement, rent shall be decided in accordance
with Section 10 of the Act, 2021 and Section 9
of the Act, 2021 would not be applicable. In the
present case, it is undisputed that there is no rent
agreement between the parties and after
purchasing the house in question, respondentlandlord has given notice to petitioner to
execute
the
tenancy
agreement
for
enhancement of rent, but the same could not be
signed as the tenant did not show any
willingness to execute the rent agreement
pursuant to notice dated 01.06.2022. Therefore,
rent authority has rightly fixed the rent in terms
of Section 10 of the Act, 2021 read with Section
9(5) of the Ac, 2021 and there is no infirmity or
illegality in the order of rent authority.

8. I have considered the submission
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
9. For the present controversy,
Section 9 and 10 of the Act, 2021 are
relevant and the same are bing quoted
hereinbelow:

"9. Revision of Rent.-(1) The
revision of rent between the landlord and
the tenant shall be in accordance with the
terms of the tenancy agreement.

(2)
Where,
after
the
commencement of tenancy, the landlord
has entered into an agreement in writing
with the tenant prior to the commencement
of the work and has incurred expenditure
for carrying out improvement, addition or
structural alteration in the premises
occupied by the tenant, which does not
include repairs necessary to be carried out
under Section 15, the landlord may
increase the rent of the premises by an
amount as agreed to between the landlord
and the tenant, and such increase in rent
shall become effective from one month after
the completion of such work.

(3) Subject to any agreement in
writing, where the premises have been let
out before the commencement of this Act,
the rent thereof shall be liable to be revised
for a further period of two years from the
commencement of this Act, according to the
formula indicated below-

(a) where the premises have been
let out prior to 15.07.1972, it shall be
deemed to have been let out on 15.07.1972;

 (b) where the premises have been
let out on or after 15.07.1972, the date for
revision of rent shall be one year after the
date of commencement of tenancy.

The rate of rent payable in above
cases shall be liable to be increased at the
rate of 5% per annum in case of residential
accommodation and 7% per annum in case
of non-residential premises, and the rate of
increase of rent shall be compounded on an
yearly basis. The amount of rent so arrived
5 All. Virendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Amit Dua & Anr.
271
at shall again be liable to be increased at
the aforesaid rates per annum in similar
manner up to the commencement of this
Act.

Notwithstanding
anything
mentioned above, if rent of premises had
been revised during continuance of tenancy
after 15.07.1972, the formula of revision of
rent mentioned above shall be applicable
from the date of such revision of rent:

Provided that notwithstanding
anything mentioned above, the revised rent
payable as per formula indicated in
aforesaid provision, shall be payable as
below from the date of commencement of
this Act:

(i) in the first year, half of the
rent so computed; and

(ii) in the second year, full
amount of rent so computed.

 (4)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3
wherein any premises referred to, has been
let out to a tenant, the landlord of such
premises shall also be entitled for revision
of rent in accordance with provisions of
clause (3) and the relevant provisions of
this Act shall apply to such cases.

 (5) In the case of tenancy entered
into before the commencement of this Act
the landlord shall, by notice in writing to
the tenant, demand the enhanced rate of
rent as specified under sub-section (3) and
the rate of rent so enhanced shall be
payable within 30 days of the service of
notice. In such event the tenancy agreement
shall be deemed to be amended and
enhanced rate of rent shall be the rent
payable under Section 8:

Provided that if there was no
tenancy
agreement
before
the
commencement of this Act, the landlord
and the tenant may mutually agree to
execute tenancy agreement for enhanced
rate of rent failing which the rent authority
shall determine the enhanced rent subject
to the provisions of Section 10.

 (6) No arrears of aforesaid
enhanced
rent
shall
be payable
or
recoverable for the period prior to
commencement of this Act.

10. Rent Authority to determine
the revised rent in case of dispute. -(1) In
case of any dispute between the landlord
and the tenant regarding revision of rent,
the Rent Authority may, on an application
made by the landlord or tenant, determine
the revised rent and other charges payable
by the tenant and also fix the date from
with such revised rent becomes payable.

(2) In determining the rent to be
revised, the rent Authority may be guided
by the prevailing market rent in the
surrounding areas let out on rent.

 (3) Once a determination under
this section has been made, no application
for fresh determination shall lie for a
period of one year after the
said
determination.

 (4) The Rent Authority may
determine provisional rent during the
proceedings for revision of rent which shall
be subject to final determination.

10. There is no doubt that in case of
agreement in writing, rent has to be revised
strictly in accordance with Section 9(3) of
the Act, 2021, which provides enhancement
of 5 per cent per annum in case of
residential accommodation and 7 per cent
per annum in case of non residential
accommodation. Section 9(5) of the Act,
2021 provides that in case tenancy entered
into before the commencement of the Act,
2021, landlord shall by notice in writing to
tenant demand the enhancement of rent as
specified under Section 9(3) of the Act,
2021, but proviso to Section 9(5) of the
Act, 2021 clearly provides that if there was
no
tenancy
agreement
before
the
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commencement of the Act, 2021 and after
notice, tenant and landlord fails to execute
any tenancy agreement, the rent authority
shall determine the enhanced rent under the
provision of Section 10 of the Act, 2021.

11. Therefore, from the perusal of
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, 2021 the legal
position so emerges is that, in case of
tenancy agreement between the parties, rent
shall be revised in terms of Section 9(3) i.e.
in
case
of
residential
property
the
enhancement would be @ 5 per cent per
annum and for non-residential property, it
would be @ 7 per cent per annum.

12. Further, in terms of Section
9(5) of the Act, 2021 in case tenancy
agreement between the landlord and the
tenant, the landord by notice in writing to
tenant, demand the enhanced rent in terms
of Section 9(3) of the Act, 2021, which
would be payable within 30 days from the
date of notice. Further, tenancy agreement
shall be deemed to be amended and
enhanced rent shall be payable under
Section 8 of the Act, 2021.

13. Proviso to Section 9(5) of the
Act, 2021 provides that in case there is no
tenancy
agreement
before
the
commencement of this Act, landlord and
tenant may mutually agree to execute a
tenancy agreement for the enhanced rent
and in case they fail to do so, rent
authority shall determine enhanced rent
strictly in accordance with Section 10 of
the Act, 2021. Section 10 of the Act,
2021 provides procedure for revision of
rent in case of dispute. From conojoined
reading of proviso to Section 9(5) and 10
of the Act, 2021, it is absolutely clear that
in case of absence of rent agreement, if a
dispute arose about the revise rent, same
shall be decided strictly in terms of
Section 10 of the Act, 2021 and the rent
would
be
revised
considering
the
prevailing market in surrounding area let
out on rent.

14. So far as present case is
concerned, it is undisputed that there is
no
tenancy
agreement
before
the
commencement of the Act, 2021 and
further, after receiving of notice dated
01.06.2022, no tenancy agreement could
be signed. Therefore, in light of proviso
to Section 9(5), enhanced rent has to be
fixed in accordance with Section 10 of
the Act, 2021. Section 10 of the Act,
2021 provides that while determining the
rent, rent authority may calculate the
prevailing market rent in the surrounding
areas let out on rent. While deciding the
rent
case,
the
rent
authority
has
considered the rent agreement dated
10.08.2021 of same locality, which was
Rs.
60,000/-
per
month.
The
rent
authority has considered the prevailing
market rate in surrounding areas and
accordingly fixed the rent @ 25,000/- per
month, which has also been affirmed by
the rent tribunal.

15. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that rent tribunal and rent authority
have rightly fixed the rent in accordance
Section 10 of the Act, 2021 read with
proviso to Section 9(5) of the Act, 2021.

16. Accordingly, in view of facts
and circumstances of the case, I find no
infirmity or illegality in the order dated
31.03.2023, 08.08.2024 and 17.12.2024.

17. Petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.

18. No order as to costs.
----------
5 All. Balaram Chari Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
273
(2025) 5 ILRA 273
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 16 of 2016

Balaram Chari Dubey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mahendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 376, 323, 504 & 506 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 3(2) (V) - Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section
4 - As per F.I.R, accused committed rape
on informant's daughter - Applicant
appointed
as
Investigating
Officer,
conducted investigation, filed charge
sheet - During trial, all prosecution
witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5) examined ,
supported prosecution's case - Alleged
that applicant did not get victim's
St.ment recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. nor recorded doctor's St.ment -
Trial
court,
considering
this
wilful
negligence,
made
adverse
remarks
against applicant - Applicant, before
court
St.d
victim
was
unwell
and
requested not to record her St.ment -
Although victim later denied before trial
court, no evidence she ever filed any
complaint
against
applicant
before
Magistrate
-
Trial
court
recorded
St.ments of applicant and victim in usual
course, but upon concluding applicant
committed
wilful
negligence,
opportunity of hearing should be given -
Trial
court
made
adverse
remarks
against applicant without establishing
'wilful
negligence'
in
investigation,
ignoring
settled
law
and
defeating
purpose of Act, 1989. (Para 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,
21, 27, 28)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC
703, (Para 10)

2. Neeraj Garg Vs Sarita Rani & ors., (2021) 9
SCC 92, (Paras 9 to 18)

3. St. of Orissa & ors. Vs Mohammad Illiyas
reported in (2006) 1 SCC 275, (Paras 9 to 11)

4. Ananda Pangala Vs T.R. Jagannath reported
in 2003 Cr.L.J.3215, (Para 6)

5. Ram Pal Vs St. of Raj., reported in 1998
Cr.L.J. 3261, (Paras 8, 9)

6. Anujaram Parhi Vs St. of Orissa, reported in
1989 Cr.L.J. 447, (Para 3)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. The instant application under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
assailing the impugned direction issued by
the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act,
Barabanki in Judgment and Order dated 2710-2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 9472
of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 143
of 2014, under sections 376/323/504/506 of
the I.P.C., section 3(2) (V) of the S.C./S.T.
Act and section 4 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police
Station-Jaidpur,
District-Barabanki.,
whereby the learned trial court has directed