170 per year has been fixed on the basis of mutual agreement and, therefore, the question of re fixation of rent does number arise.
After the said plot of land had been let out to him, respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the District Supply Officer the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Judges have further found that in the instant case admitted ly an agreement existed between the appellant and the tenant that the tenant shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.
situated at Garhmukteshwar Road Azad Road Meerut.
1 with the companysent of the appellant companystructed a building over the said plot in 1965.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.
K. Jain, Ms. Abha R. Sharma and R.P. Singh, for the Appellant.
The said writ petition was dis missed by a Division Bench of the said High Court by order dated February 19, 1980.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Shri R.K. Jain, the learned companynsel for the appellant has urged that sub section 4 of Section 29 A postulates determination of rent in accordance with sub section 5 in cases where the rent has number been mutually agreed upon between the parties.
M .C. Dhingra for the Respondents.
1 on March 20, 1957 at an annual rent of Rs.
5933 1983.
Petition No.
170 per annum to the appellant and as such there companyld be numberen hancement of the rent under sub section 5 of Section 29 A. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave to appeal.
The Act was enacted by the U .P. State legislature to provide, in the interest of the general public, for the regulation of letting and rent of, and the eviction of tenants from certain classes of buildings situated in urban areas, and for matters companynected therewith.
The appellant is the owner of a plot of land measuring 30 x 65 sq.
It was amended by U.P. Act XXVIII of 1976 whereby Section 29 A was inserted with a view to give pro tection against eviction to certain classes of tenants of land on which building exists.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL.
5860 of 1978.
1980 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The learned Judges have held that under Section 29 A the District Magistrate has jurisdiction to determine the rent only in those cases where there is numberagreement relating to rent and if there is an agreement between the landlord and the tenant then the District Magis trate has numberjurisdiction to determine the rent.
The Act, as originally enacted, was companyfined in its application to buildings only.
The said plot of land was let out by the appellant to the respondent No.
After the enactment of Section 29 A the appellant submitted an application on September 29, 1976, before the District Supply Officer Delegated Authority, Meerut, for fixation of appropriate rent for the plot of land under sub section 5 of Section 29 A. The said appli cation of the appellant was dismissed by the District Supply Officer Delegated Authority by order dated April 14, 1978 on the view that the provisions of sub section 5 of Section 29 A for fixation of rent are applicable to those cases only in which there is numberagreed rent and that in this case both the parties have accepted that the rent of land is Rs.
