High Court Can Exercise Supervisory Power In Exceptional Circumstances In Matters Arising Out Of Rent Control Legislation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering a matter pertaining to the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that an application for enhancement of rent made under the proviso of Section 21(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is permissible and the High Court can exercise its supervisory power in exceptional circumstances in matters arising out of rent control legislation.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to order enhancement of rent in a petition arising out of an order of the Rent Control Authority was in dispute.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh stated, “In the result, we hold that an application for enhancement of rent made under the proviso of Section 21(8) of the Act is permissible and maintainable. We also hold that the High Court can in exceptional circumstances exercise its supervisory power in matters arising out of rent control legislations however in the facts of this case, and in view of the absence of material on record, the impugned judgment is set aside.”
AOR Bhakti Vardhan Singh represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The forebears of the respondent-landlords let out the building in question to the Trade Tax Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, back in the year 1966. After some attempts to have the said property vacated in the 1990s, an application came to be filed for the enhancement of rent. The primary consideration in ordering the enhancement of rent was that the location of the property was prime and central, along with the fact that the same Government Authority was paying a much higher rate for another, much smaller building.
On appeal by the landlord – respondent, the Additional District Judge, remanded the matter back to the Rent Control Authority for rehearing and passing a fresh order within six months. The respondent-landlords challenged this remand order before the High Court, which accepted the contention of the landlord that the rent payable on the adjacent premises, also taken by the appellant tenants, was Rs.14 per sq.ft. It was so ordered that the determination of the Court below would stand modified accordingly, and the same would be payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 21(8) of the Act. This was done in view of the fact that remanding the matter once again would lead to further delay. The appellant-tenants filed a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule V of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, which was dismissed by the Division Bench as non-maintainable. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-tenants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Dealing with the issue of whether the High Court under Article 227 could have ordered the enhancement of rent, the Bench explained that with specific reference to property or rent, the Court under this power is, in the case of the former, limited to cases where there is some statutory infraction or alleged collusion with the concerned Authority. In the case of the latter, it has been held that routine exercise of this power would be unwarranted since the special statute provides for the manner of exercise of powers by a particular Authority.
“In light of the above principles it be observed that although the interference of the High Court under Article 227 in rent matters is not completely barred, it is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly particularly since rent control legislations are considered to be special laws”, it added.
The Bench took note of the submission of the appellant-tenants that there existed no material on record on which the impugned order could stand, or that the respondent-landlords had not appended any material to conclusively show that an adjoining premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.14 per sq. ft. It was a mere statement by the respondent-landlords’ counsel, and it was specifically recorded that the latter would be satisfied if this were done. The Bench also noticed that there was no statement opposing this or even accepting the same, recorded on behalf of the appellant tenants.
The Bench was of the view that an application for enhancement of rent made under the proviso of Section 21(8) of the Act is permissible and maintainable.
The Bench also held that the Single Judge’s hesitation in remanding the matter to the Rent Control Officer, Bahraich, was well-founded, as it would have taken a long time for the matter to have been conclusively decided once again. The Bench thus remanded the matter to the above-said Authority to decide the question of rent payable by the appellant-tenants afresh, as also the particulars as pointed out by the Appellate Authority.
“...we direct that the same shall be decided within four months from the date of this order. The order once made, shall be applicable from the date of the institution of the original application in the year 2008”, it further ordered.
Cause Title: State of U.P. & Ors. v. Srivastava & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 601)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Bhakti Vardhan Singh
Respondent: Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh, AOR Veera Kaul Singh, Advocates Pankaj Singh, Ridhima Singh