High Court Can’t Enhance Rent Under Article 227 Based On Mere Statements Without Evidence; Power To Be Exercised Sparingly: Supreme Court

"Interference of the High Court under Article 227 in rent matters is not completely barred, it is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly particularly since rent control legislations are considered to be special laws, " Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 29, 2026, held that the High Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot assume the functions of a Rent Control Authority to order the enhancement of rent without conclusive material on record.

 A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that while the High Court's power of superintendence is part of the basic structure, it must be exercised cautiously and not as a substitute for a power of appeal.

The dispute originated from a property let out by the predecessors of the respondent-landlords to the Trade Tax Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, in 1966. In 2008, the landlords filed an application for enhancement of rent under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. After a series of litigations, the High Court modified a remand order and enhanced the rent to Rs. 14 per sq. ft. based on a statement by the landlords' counsel regarding rent paid for adjacent premises, which led the State of U.P. to approach the Apex Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could have ordered the enhancement of rent in a petition arising out of an order of the Rent Control Authority. The court was also called upon to determine whether the deletion of certain clauses in Section 21 of the UP Rent Act, 1972, impacted the operationality of the proviso concerning rent enhancement.

Interpretation Of Section 21(8) Regarding Rent Enhancement

The Court first addressed the statutory framework of Section 21 of the UP Rent Act, 1972. It noted that sub-section (8) provides a specific mechanism for landlords to seek rent enhancement for buildings let out to the State Government or local authorities. The bench observed that while certain scenarios for eviction were removed by the 1976 amendment, the right to seek enhancement remained a vital tool to balance the scales between landlords and government tenants.

Deletion Of Clauses Does Not Extinguish The Proviso

The Court clarified that the deletion of Clauses (ii) and (iv) from the Explanation to Section 21(1) of the Act does not impact the operationality of the proviso to Section 21(8). It held that if the State's contention were accepted, it would virtually turn the tenant into the landlord, leaving the owner with no way to reclaim their property either physically or financially. The bench emphasized that no provision can be read so restrictively as to defeat the very purpose of the landlord-tenant relationship.

"No provision can be read so restrictively only because on the other side of the equation, is the Government itself which would defeat the very purpose of the landlord-tenant relationship."

Scope Of Supervisory Power Under Article 227

Regarding the High Court's power, the Supreme Court reiterated the established principles of supervisory jurisdiction. It noted that the High Courts, being the apex of the judiciary in the State, have been conferred power of superintendence to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals function within the confines of the law. However, the bench cautioned that this power is not meant to correct the mere correctness of a decision but to address abuse of power or grave injustice.

High Court Cannot Substitute Its Own Decision For The Tribunal’s

The Apex Court highlighted that under Article 227, the High Court should not substitute the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal with its own. Specifically in rent matters, routine exercise of this power is unwarranted because special statutes provide for the manner of exercise of powers by particular authorities. The bench noted that the High Court’s intervention must be limited to cases of statutory infraction or jurisdictional transgression.

Enhancement Based On Mere Counsel Statements Is Impermissible

Turning to the facts of the case, the Court found that the High Court had fixed the rent at Rs. 14 per sq. ft. based solely on a statement made by the respondents' counsel. The bench observed that there was no material or evidence on record to conclusively show that adjoining premises were being let at that specific rate. It held that the absence of evidence made the High Court's order unsustainable, despite the High Court's well-intentioned desire to avoid further delay through remand.

"In view of the absence of material on record, the impugned judgment is set aside."

The Supreme Court concluded that while an application for enhancement under Section 21(8) is maintainable, the High Court’s specific exercise of power in this instance was flawed. Consequently, it set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter back to the Rent Control Officer, Bahraich. The Authority has been directed to decide the question of rent afresh within four months, with the final order being applicable from the date of the original application in 2008.

The ruling reinforces the principle that while Article 227 is a powerful tool for judicial superintendence, it cannot be used to bypass the evidentiary requirements of special statutes like rent control laws. It strikes a balance by upholding the landlord’s right to seek fair rent while ensuring that such determinations are based on legal evidence rather than summary proceedings at the High Court level.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026