Partly allowed

Prabhu Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022WRIC/24990/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a defendant tenant who continued occupying petioner's premises after the original lease expired was deemed a month-to-month lessee under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, the tenant was obligated to pay increased rent as per the Government Order dated 25.11.2011. The previous rejection of the petitioner's claim was quashed, and the matter rem

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.3.2018 was quashed and set aside, and the matter remitted to the relevant State Government authority for a fresh decision within one month.

Prabhu Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24990 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Prabhu Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Asthana,Shweta Singh Rana,Vivek Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

The petitioner had rented out his property situate in Mohallah - Badarka, Azamgarh, to the Assistant Director (Employment) Regional Employment Office, Azamgarh. This letting out was done on 21.1.2008 and the parties had entered into a written agreement on 28.1.2008. The lease, as per the agreement, was to expire on 21.1.2013. After 21.1.2013, the respondent no. 4 continued to be a tenant in the premises of the petitioner till 16.8.2017. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 vacated the premises. For the period starting from 21.1.2013 and ending on 16.8.2017, the petitioner had prayed for the payment of the increased rent as per the Government Order dated 25.11.2011.

¶6

In this regard, the petitioner had made a representation before the State Government, which when was rejected on 28.5.2018, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on a wrong premise on 28.3.2018 by saying that since after 21.1.2013 there was no agreement for the respondent no. 4 to stay on as a tenant in the premises of the petitioner, no increment of rent was permissible and, therefore, if the respondents had continued to pay Rs. 10,543.40/- then the respondents could not be directed to pay the arrears of increased rent which was permissible under the Government Order dated 25.11.2011.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if by any chance there was no rent agreement then under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the respondent no. 4 shall be deemed to be a lessee from month to month and, therefore, the increment ought to

¶9

have been made as per the Government Order dated 25.11.2011. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in support of the impugned order dated 28.3.2018 has stated that the order need not be interfered with as there was no lease deed on the basis of which the respondent no. 4 had continued to be the lessee after 21.1.2013 under Section 106 of the Act.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel the Court is of the view that the order dated 28.3.2018 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. When the respondent no. 4 had continued to remain a lessee after 21.1.2013 then it shall be deemed that it was a tenant/lessee in the premises of the petitioner on a month to month basis.

¶11

Under such circumstances, it shall be deemed that even if there was no lease deed signed by the parties, the respondent no. 4 had continued in accordance with law as a tenant and it was, therefore, his duty to enhance the rent as per the Government Order dated 25.11.2011.

¶12

The order dated 28.3.2018 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back for a fresh decision by the relevant authority of the State Government on a priority basis within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order on the basis of the law as has been stated above in this order.

¶13

With these observations, the writ petition stands partly allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.8.2022

¶15

¶16

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)..........(Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.08.29 18:00:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prabhu Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakriyatmak Evam Vipran Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Rakesh Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corpn. and Others

The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. Thru V.K. Teotia Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and Ors.

Awdesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Savit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Joya @ Joya and Another Vs the State of U.P. and 8 Others