Allahabad High Court
Devanand Singh @ Deva Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2024
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:24794-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69815 of 2013 Petitioner :- Devanand Singh @ Deva Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pustahar, U.P. at Lucknow i.e .Respondent no.2 to decide the application/representation dated 26.06.20-23 and to provide rent in the tune of Rs.6 per sq. feet to the petitioner within some stipulated period."
3. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ-C No.22802 of 2010, Devanand Singh Alias Deva Singh vs. State of U.P. and others. At that stage, petitioner was seeking revision of rent from Rs.1.5 per square feet of the carpet area to Rs.6 per square feet of the carpet area. That writ petition was disposed of with the following direction:-
"In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the respondents may take an appropriate decision on the said proposal forwarded by the Director Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Lucknow vide its letter dated 26/3/2009, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him. The petitioner shall be paid rent from the date of taking of the possession. We in this writ petition cannot enter into the adequacy of the rent. For the aforesaid purpose, petitioner may take such remedy as permissible under law."
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite such specific direction issued, the respondent authorities have disregarded the same and again provided for payment at the rate of Rs.1.5 per square feet of the carpet area. In that regard, it has been further submitted that the original proposal was to revise the rent from Rs.3.5 per square feet of the carpet area. It was reduced to Rs.1.5 per square feet of the carpet area, in an arbitrary manner.
5. As to the current status, it has been informed that respondents have vacated the premises.
6. Thus, the petitioner is claiming arrears of rent only at the revised rate of Rs.6 per square feet of the carpet area.
7. Fixation of rent is primarily a contractual term. In any case, in the context of premises having been vacated and only arrears of rent being claimed, we are not inclined to offer any interference in the writ jurisdiction. As to the continued representations filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of rent, those may never confer any jurisdiction or may never give rise to any ground as may persuade this Court to offer any interference, in face of earlier denial to interfere in determination of rent.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy wherever it lies.
Order Date :- 13.2.2024 Salim (Manjive Shukla, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)