Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23671 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1673 of 2025 Petitioner :- Soney Lal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Satyam Pandey, learned counsel for the tenant/ petitioner and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the landlord/ respondent. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order of rent authority, whereby, the rent has been enhanced to Rs. 45,000/- per month of the demised premises which upon being challenged in appeal get reduced to Rs. 22,500/- per month. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even this finding is unsustainable for the simple reason that rent ought to have been enhanced @ 7% and for that he had given a reply to the notice issued by the landlord/ respondent. He submitted that upto year 2023 the landlord/ respondent himself accepted the rent @ Rs. 7,200/- per month which itself amounted to fair admission on the part of landlord/ respondent qua agreement and, therefore, the exorbitant enhancement of rent by the Tribunal is not justified for the market value of the property in the area where the demised property situate. 4. Per contra it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Tiwari that in fact there was no agreement reached between the parties and for the first time the landlord/ respondent had given a notice to the tenant/ petitioner giving him an offer to enter into a tenancy agreement, on 21.09.2023 under the provisions of Section 4 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. It is submitted further that even though the tenant replied to the notice reiterating his stand to pay rent with a nominal increase of 7% but failed to enter any agreement by furnishing any offer before the rent authority and resultantly as per the notice sent to the petitioner earlier, the landlord/ respondent applied for enhancing the rent under Section 10 of the Act No. 16 of 2021. According to him the rent authority considered certain leases in respect of certain nearby premises and fixed the rent @ Rs. 45,000/- per month @ 45/- per square feet. He submitted that even though the appellate Tribunal was not justified in reversing the finding of the rent authority merely on the basis of certain photographs produced by the petitioner, however, he is not assailing the order of the appellate Tribunal he is ready to abide by the order passed by appellate Tribunal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find it to be an admitted position between the parties that there was no written agreement as to the tenancy in respect of demised premises and whatever initial rent was being given and paid would not have bound the landlord/ respondent to abide by those terms and conditions. The landlord/ respondent himself gave a notice to the tenant/ petitioner requiring him to enter into an agreement in which he failed and resultantly the provisions as prescribed under Section 10 of the Act No. 16 of 2021 came to be invoked. From the perusal of the order passed by the rent authority it clearly transpires that certain deeds were placed before the rent authority as an exemplar of the market value of the commercial rate of rent which is being charged in respect of certain nearby properties at the place and balancing the equity between the parties and considering the market value ranging between Rs. 35/- to Rs. 45/- per square feet in respect of two premises in nearby place, it fixed Rs. 45/- per square feet to make out a final assessment of rent @ Rs. 45,000/- per month. 6. These above findings came to be assailed before the appellate Tribunal, however, without bringing on record any evidence to the contrary. From the perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it becomes clear that there was no cogent material placed by the tenant/ petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal for assailing the findings of rent authority as to the market value of the nearby premises in respect of which certain leases were considered and appreciated. However, merely considering certain photographs, the appellate Tribunal has reduced the rent from Rs. 45/- per square feet to Rs. 22.50 per square feet making a final assessment @ Rs. 22,500/- per month. Although the order has been passed in favour of the tenant/ petitioner reducing the rent enhanced by the rent authority only on the basis of certain photographs produced which itself can not be said to be cogent material for reversing the findings of the rent authority but the said order is not under challenge before this Court and the landlord is also satisfied with the order passed by the appellate Tribunal, so I do not find any justification to make any observation as to the findings returned by the appellate Tribunal. However, suffice is to observe that the appellate Tribunal has done justice in the matter so far as the claim of the tenant/petitioner is concerned. There is no manifest error either in the order of rent authority or of the appellate Tribunal so as to warrant interference under my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad