Baldeo Krishna, Advocate Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.

.....change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - petitioner is a lawyer, practising on the taxation side, hence he must be earning good income. this is excellent situation for the tenant-petitioner. 5 per month for a shop in saharanpur is virtually as well as actually no rent......good income. rent is rs. 5 per month. the said rent is also not being paid by the petitioner on the ground that some persons are quarrelling for landlordship. this is excellent situation for the tenant-petitioner. the last nail in the coffin is the fact that in this writ petition landlord has not been impleaded as party. petitioner who is tenant and respondent no. 2 dhan prakash, applicant for allotment are fighting for the tenanted shop and landlord is watching the drama from the gallery.4. this writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.10.1992 passed by rent control and eviction officer/district supply officer, saharanpur in case no. 53 of 1990. rent control and eviction officer by the impugned order declared the vacancy on the ground that shop in dispute was not being used by the petitioner. in my opinion, the order is illegal. even if a commercial accommodation is not being used, it does not give rise to vacancy under any of the provisions of section 12 of u.p. act no. 13 of 1972. rent control and eviction officer also found that petitioner had constructed some shops which were adjacent to the shop in dispute. this also could not give rise to vacancy in the case of commercial accommodation. acquisition of another accommodation is a ground of vacancy only in the case of residential building.5. accordingly, writ petition is allowed. impugned judgment and order declaring vacancy is set aside.6. i have held in khursheeda v. a.d.j. 2004 (1) awc 851 : 2004 (2) arc 64, that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by rent control act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. rent of rs. 5 per month for a shop in saharanpur is virtually as well as actually no rent. by paying such a highly inadequate rent for several decades petitioner must have saved a lot of money. money saved is money earned. accordingly it is directed that with effect from february, 2006, onward petitioner shall pay.....