Allowed

Abad Ahmad and Others v. Collector/District Magistrate Shrawasti and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2025WRIA/1000134/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order enhancing rent under section 29-A(5) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The Court held that absent pleadings asserting erection of permanent structures with landlord's consent and expenditure incurred, the District Magistrate's order was unsustainable, quashed it, allowed the writ petition, and directed expeditious decision of pending section 21 proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abad Ahmad and Others Vs Collector/District Magistrate… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1000134 of 2013

¶3

Abad Ahmad And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Collector/District Magistrate Shrawasti And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Aslam Khan, Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Brijesh Kumar, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Rakesh Kumar Verma, Ravi Shanker Tewari, Utkarsh Srivastava, Vishwakant Srivastava

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶9

I.A. No.20 of 2025 (Application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act) and I.A.

¶10

No.21 of 2025 .

¶11

1. I.A. No.20 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 04.04.2025 and I.A. No.21 of 2025 has been filed for recall of the order dated 04.04.2025.

¶12

2. Cause shown is sufficient. The applications are allowed.

¶13

3. Delay in filing the recall application is condoned. Order dated 04.04.2025 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original file and number.

¶14

I.A. No.17 of 2025; I.A. No.18 of 2025; and I.A. No.19 of 2025

¶15

4. I.A. No.17 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the substitution application (I.A. No.19 of 2025) on account of the death of the petitioner no.4 and the I.A. No.18 of 2025 has been filed for setting aside the abatement.

¶16

5. Cause shown is sufficient. The I.A. No.17 of 2025 is allowed. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. Consequently, I.A. No.18 of 2025 is also allowed.

¶17

6. The counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary incorporation in the array of the parties during the course of the day.

¶18

WRIA No. 1000134 of 2013

¶19

¶20

7. In view of the order passed in the substitution application, abatement is set aside. Hence, I.A. No. 19 of 2025 stands disposed off.

¶21

Order on merit

¶22

8. Heard Sri M. A. Khan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan the counsel for the petitioner and, Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Sri Ravi Shanker Tiwari as well as Sri Vishwakant Srivastva the counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶23

9. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure no.1) whereby, in exercise of power under section 29-A (5) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the rent of the premises has been enhanced by the District Magistrate.

¶24

10 . The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners, claimed to be in possession of the property owned by the respondent. It is argued that the respondent, claiming himself to be the landlord and the owner of the premises, instituted proceedings under section 20 of the Act for rent and eviction as well as under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. It is claimed that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act and Section 20 of the Act, a fresh application was filed under section 29-A(5) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 before the District Magistrate and on the said application, despite the written statement filed in the petition under section 21(1)(a), the same has been allowed and the rent has been enhanced.

¶25

11. The neat submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that section 29(A) was introduced w.e.f. 05.07.1976 to compensate the landlord in cases where, the tenant with the consent of the landlord has raised constructions in terms of the prescriptions contained under Section 29-A(2) of the Act. He argues that to invoke the provisions of Section 29-A, it is essential that the premises rented out should be a land on which, with the landlord's consent, the tenant has erected the permanent structure and has incurred expenses in execution thereof. He argues that in the application filed by the respondent, no such assertion was contained, as such, the application under the said section itself was not maintainable. He further argues that even in the impugned order, no such finding has been recorded with regard to there being any consent of the landlord permitting to raise any permanent construction or the respondent having incurred expenses in execution thereof.

¶26

WRIA No. 1000134 of 2013

¶27

¶28

12. The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, draws my attention to the objection filed by the petitioners in response to the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, to argue that even as per the own admission of the petitioners, an Aara Machine (Saw Mill) was running at the premises and thus, necessary ingredients were available for invoking the power under section 29-A (5) of the Act.

¶29

13. Considering the submissions made at the bar and recorded above, in terms of the provisions of Section 29-A, which are quoted herein below, it is essential that the application be filed with the assertion as prescribed under section 29-A(2) that the tenant had raised constructions with the permission of the landlord and had incurred expenses thereon and on the making of such assertion and pleading, the District Magistrate is empowered to pass order under Section 29-A (5) of the Act. Section 29-A reads as under :

¶30

"29-A Protection against eviction to certain classes of tenants of land on which building exits. - (1) For the purposes of this section, the expressions 'tenant' and 'landlord' shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (a) and (j) of section 3 with the substitution of the work 'land' for the word 'building'.

¶31

(2) This section applies only to land let out, either before or after the commencement of this section, where the tenant, with the landlord's consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in execution thereof.

¶32

(3) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this section, the provisions of section 20 shall apply in relation to any land referred to in sub-section (2), as they apply in relation to any building.

¶33

(4) The tenant of any land to which this section applies shall be liable to pay to the landlord such rent as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties, and in the absence of agreement, the rent determined in accordance with sub-section (5).

¶34

(5) The District Magistrate shall on the application of the landlord or the tenant determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land and such rent shall be payable, except as provided in sub-section (6) from the date of expiration of the term for which the land was let or from the commencement of his section, whichever is later.

¶35

(6) (a) In any suit or appeal or other proceeding pending immediately before the date of commencement of this section, no decree for eviction of a tenant from any land to which this section applies, shall be passed or executed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 20, provided the tenant, within a period of three months from the commencement of his section by an application to the court, unconditionally offers to pay to the landlord, the enhanced rent of the land for the entire period in suit and onwards at he rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land together with costs of the suit (including costs of any appeal or of any execution or other proceedings);

¶36

WRIA No. 1000134 of 2013

¶37

¶38

(b) In every such case, the enhanced rent shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), be determined by the court seized of the case at any stage;

¶39

(c) Upon payment against a receipt duly signed by the plaintiff or decreeholder or his counsel or deposit in court of such enhanced rent with costs as aforesaid being made by the tenant within such time as the court may fix in this behalf, the court shall dismiss the suit, or as the case may be, discharge the decree for eviction, and the tenancy thereafter, shall continue annually on the basis of the rent so enhanced;

¶40

(d) If the tenant fails to pay the said amount with the time so fixed (including any extended time, if any, that the court may fix or for sufficient cause allow) the court shall proceed further in the case as if the foregoing provisions of this section were not in force.

¶41

(7) The provisions of this section shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract or instrument or in any other law for the time being in force."

¶42

14. From the pleadings of the application, which is on record, no such assertion exists in the application which is contained in Annexure no.2. The landlord had himself stated that the proceedings under sections 20 and 21 had been instituted and without prejudice to the rights to pursue the application under section 21(1)(a), the present application was being filed as rent, according to him, was a meager amount.

¶43

15. No doubt, in the objection filed to the application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, it was stated that a sawmill was running at the premises, however the said admission also would in itself not entitle the landlord to move an application under section 29-A(5) of the Act without there being any pleading that, the permanent constructions were raised with the consent of the landlord and expenditure has been incurred. A sawmill from its very nature cannot be termed as a permanent construction and there is no material to suggest as to what expenses were incurred or any permission was granted by the landlord.

¶44

16. In the absence of there being any pleading to that effect and any finding recorded in the impugned order, the exercise of power under section 29-A(5) cannot be held to be justified. Thus, on the said limited ground, the impugned order dated 14.06.2013 cannot be sustained and is quashed.

¶45

17. The writ petition stands allowed. However, the other litigation pending in between the parties shall continue in accordance with law without being influenced by the present order.

¶46

18. It is further directed that the petition filed by the respondent under

¶47

WRIA No. 1000134 of 2013

¶48

¶49

section 21(1)(a) of the Act and said to be pending shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

¶50

19. The amount deposited by the petitioners, if lying, shall be returned to the petitioners on their moving appropriate application. In case the amount has been withdrawn by the landlord, the same can be recovered in accordance with law.

¶51

August 22, 2025 VNP/-

¶52

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶53

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abad Ahmad and Others v. Collector/District Magistrate Shrawasti and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abad Ahmad and Others v. Collector/District Magistrate Shrawasti and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

U.P Awas Evam Viaks Pari. Thru. Hous. Comm. Regis. Lko. Vs Akhilesh Sharan Srivastava

Madarsa Hameediya Rayazul Uloom and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Madarsa Razviya Ahle Sunnat Kanzul Uloom and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Newatia vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home)

Durgesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Lath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others