Inflation no reason to increase rent, rules courtFebruary 20th, 2012 - 9:16 pm ICT by IANS
New Delhi, Feb 20 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has ruled that the landlords governed by the rent control act can’t approach civil courts to raise rents in line with the inflation or cost price index.
Acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv Shah Endlaw said the jurisdiction of the civil court in this regard is barred by section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
“A landlord of a premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is entitled to have increase(s) in rent only in accordance with Section 6A and 8 thereof and not otherwise; such a landlord cannot approach the civil vourt contending that the rent stands increased or should be increased in accordance with the inflation or cost price index,” the bench observed.
Santosh Vaid, a landlord, had approached the high court seeking a direction to increase the monthly rent of his tenant from Rs.150 to Rs.10,000 citing inflation as a reason.
Vaid said he had let out his property to Uttam Chand in November 1987 at a monthly rental of Rs. 150 but Chand has not been paying rent since July 2009 after it was increased to Rs.10,000 a month.
Submitting that after taking into account inflation and fall in value of rupee, Vaid contended that if the value of Rs.150 is considered, this would not be less than Rs10,000.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has started claiming house tax on the basis of Unit Area System.
The court said that where the rent of the premises agreed by the parties was below Rs.3,500 per month, the civil court would not have jurisdiction.
In this present case, the petitioners themselves had admitted the rent to be Rs.150. So section 50 of the Delhi Rent Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil court, the bench observed.
The court pointed out that rent could be increased by the landlord every three years by 10 percent as per section 6 read with section 8 of the Delhi Rent Act.
“Even though the 10 percent increase in rent every three years provided for under the Delhi Rent Act may be perceived by some as inadequate, that is no reason for this court to provide for a higher or more frequent increase,” the bench said refusing to expand its judicial overreach in the legislative domain.
- Apex court upholds needy landlord's right to evict tenant (Lead) - Jan 07, 2012
- Kanda's brother gets bail in dud cheque case (Lead) - Sep 10, 2012
- Wary of frivolous cases, landlords keeping houses vacant: Court - Jul 09, 2011
- Police get more time to probe why Kanda ignored warrant - Aug 31, 2012
- 'Separated wife entitled to maintenance as per husband's financial status' - Feb 26, 2012
- Marriages can be ended before cooling period: Apex court - Aug 25, 2012
- Tell legislator to remove structure near Jama Masjid: court urged - Aug 07, 2012
- Aircraft purchase: High court refuses to pass order - Jun 01, 2012
- Two President's Bodyguards get life term for rape - Aug 24, 2012
- Financial benefits for labourers in Delhi hiked - Feb 07, 2012
- Supreme Court releases jailed Kerala CPI-M leader - Nov 15, 2011
- Prior sanction needed for proceeding against army, court told - Mar 26, 2012
- Foreign arbitration awards beyond Indian courts' jurisdiction, says SC - Sep 06, 2012
- SC trashes plea against Pranab, warns petitioner (Second Lead) - Jul 06, 2012
- CWG: Kalmadi's bail plea deferred till Jan 9 - Jan 06, 2012
Tags: accordance with section, chand, chief justice, civil court, civil courts, control act, delhi high court, house tax, landlord, landlords, municipal corporation of delhi, municipal corporation of delhi mcd, november 1987, petitioners, price index, rajiv, rent control, rs10, rupee, section 6a