Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the State of Uttar Pradesh (appellant-tenant) and Raghvendra Nath Srivastava & Ors. (respondent-landlords) regarding enhancement of rent for a building let out in 1966 to the Trade Tax Department. The Rent Control Authority enhanced the rent to Rs.14,400 per month based on comparable rates. On appeal by the landlords, the Additional District Judge, Bahraich, set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, noting that the Authority had not recorded findings on the date from which enhancement would apply or on five-year intervals. The landlords then filed a petition under Article 227 before the High Court, which directly enhanced the rent to Rs.4 per sq.ft. (Rs.14,580 per month) without remanding. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 by substituting its own decision for that of the statutory authority. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the order of the Additional District Judge, remanding the matter to the Rent Control Authority for fresh determination in accordance with law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the High Court should not have assumed the function of the prescribed Authority.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - High Court cannot assume the function of the prescribed Authority to order enhancement of rent; it must remand to the Authority for fresh consideration. - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot substitute its own decision for that of the statutory authority. In a rent enhancement matter, the High Court erred by directly ordering enhancement at Rs.4 per sq.ft. instead of remanding to the Rent Control Authority for proper determination. Held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 5-6) B) Rent Control - Enhancement of Rent - Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The prescribed Authority must determine enhancement based on evidence, including location, comparable rents, and other factors. - The Rent Control Authority had fixed rent at Rs.14,400 per month based on comparable rates. The High Court, on appeal, enhanced it to Rs.4 per sq.ft. without remanding. Held that the High Court should have remanded the matter for proper determination. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could order enhancement of rent in a petition arising out of an order of the Rent Control Authority, or whether it should have remanded the matter to the prescribed Authority.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the order of the Additional District Judge, Bahraich, remanding the matter to the Rent Control Authority for fresh determination in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting
- Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1972
- Rent Control Authority
- Enhancement of Rent
- Supervisory Jurisdiction
