9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sought to be enhanced at ₹ 1,350/- per month from 01.10.1984 to 30.09.1989 with a further renewal on increase of rent @ 25% on the rent of ₹ 1,350/-. However, this proposal of the respondent was not accepted by the appellant. The respondent apart from filing a civil suit for eviction of the appellant also filed an application for enhancement of rent under Section 21(8) Proviso I thereto of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondent relied upon a valuation report given by Shri J.P. Aggarwal dated 11.12.1985 assessing the market value of the building at ₹ 16,50,000/-. On the basis of this report the respondent claimed a rent of ₹ 13,750/- per month from 01.01.1986. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Rent Controller. On 30.11.1992 the appellant-Bank filed application before the Rent Controller which was kept on file and the matter was set down for arguments on 1.12.1992. The applications filed earlier were not heard. By its order made on 21.1.1993 the Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the respondent and fixed the rent at ₹ 13,750/- per month. Against the said order an application was preferred to the District Judge who dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. The matter was carried to the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the civil miscellaneous writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank. Hence this appeal. Shri Harish Salve, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order made by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court and remit the matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh consideration from the stage when the matter was set down on 24.11.1992 and after noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
