Supreme Court (R.V. Raveendran J. for the Court) allowed the tenant's appeal and set aside an Allahabad High Court interim order dated 17.10.2006, passed in the landlord's Article 226/227 writ petition against rejection of his s.21(1)(a) eviction petition under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, directing the tenant to pay Rs.12,050/- per month (against Rs.150/- fixed under s.16(9) in 1985), computed by valuing each room, verandah, kitchen, terrace and latrine/bathroom separately. Held: (i) where the statute itself provides for fixation and increase of rent, the High Court cannot, in judicial review (Art.226) or superintendence (Art.227), direct payment of an arbitrarily assessed rent and must not itself cross the limits of its authority; (ii) the writ contained no prayer for rent, its sole grievance being refusal of eviction under s.21(1)(a), so no interim enhanced-rent direction was justified; (iii) the enhancement exceeded 48 times the earlier rent with no oral, documentary or affidavit evidence, ignored relevant circumstances, and portion-wise assessment of a single letting unit does not arise, the 'pragmatic approach' being arbitrary and contrary to law; (iv) guidelines: in writ petitions by landlords against rejection of eviction there is no scope for interim enhanced-rent directions, whereas in writ petitions by tenants against grant of eviction the High Court may, as a condition of stay, direct higher rent, subject to the condition being reasonable and no bar in the State rent legislation; absurdly high arbitrary figures are oppressive even as stay conditions; (v) dismissal of a special leave petition in limine does not preclude examination of the same issue in other cases, and not every wrong or doubtful exercise of jurisdiction calls for special leave absent injustice.
