High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State Of U.P. And Another v. Additional District Judge And Others - WRIT - A No. 65241 of 2006  RD-AH 20432 (1 December 2006)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 26.5.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 in Rent Appeal no. 13 of 1999.
Late Sardar Devendra Singh- respondent no. 3 was landlord of building no. 2/2344 Court Road, Civil Lines, Saharanpur, who inducted the petitioner- Trade Tax Department of U.P. State Government on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- as far back as in 1957.
The monthly rent was enhanced to Rs.5,632.80P w.e.f. 1.6.1981 vide order dated 29.1.1987 by the District Supply Officer/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur in Rent Appeal no. 2 of 1981 and to Rs.16,188 w.e.f. 1.11.1989 vide order dated 24.2.1999 of the same authority.
Agrieved by the order dated 24.2.1999, Rent Appeal Nos. 13 and 14 of 1999 were filed by the tenant-petitioner and landlord respectively.
Vide order dated 26.5.2006, the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal of the landlord by enhancing the monthly rent to Rs.20,000/- .
Aggrieved, the petitioner-State of U.P. and Trade Tax Department have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
It has been contended by the Chief Standing Counsel that while determining the rental value of the building, in dispute, as well as monthly rent, the appellate Court has disbelieved the report/certificate of valuer filed by both the parties and has fixed the market value of the building, in dispute, without any logical basis or reason. It is stat3d that manner of fixation of rent as average of the valuation reports is against the provisions of Section 21(8) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act no.XIII of 1972').
He further contended that while determining the monthly rent, the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the fact that no construction was made in the premises, in dispute even since it was let out to the Trade Tax Department in 1957. He strenuously urged that since there was no alteration, modification, or addition in the building, in dispute, the appellate Court was not legally justified in enhancing the monthly rent from Rs.16,188/- to Rs.20,000/- as the utility of the building, in dispute, was not changed and remained the same as it was in 1957.
He further contended that the formula of average adopted by the appellate Court in arriving to valuation of Rs. 24 lacs is per se illegal being against the provisions of Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the impugned order is not sustainable is law.
A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 20.5.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 reveals that according to report of the valuer of landlord, the valuation of the building, in dispute, is Rs.38 lacs whereas, the valuer of Trade Tax Department has assessed the value of the building, in dispute, at Rs.17 lacs. The appellate Court has taken average of these two valuations i.e. Rs.38 lacs plus Rs. 17 lacs = Rs.55 lacs, divided by two, which comes out to Rs. 27.5 lacs. The appellate Court has further reduced the value and has fixed it at Rs.24 lacs.
Both the valuers have followed the precedure prescribed in Section 21(8) of the Act no.XIII of 1972 and have also taken into consideration the other relevant factors. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the balance of equity, the appellate Court has valued the accommodation, in dispute less than the average amount of valuation reports submitted by both the parties.
Since both the valuation reports were prepared in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 21(8) of the Act no.XIII of 1972, it cannot be said that monthly rental amount has not been fixed as per provision of Section 21(8) of the aforesaid Act. In fact, substantial compliance of Section 21(8) of the Act no.XIII of 1972 has been made. Hence, contention of Chinef Standing Counsel in this regard has no force.
It cannot be said that the decision of taking less than the average value, as stated above, is without any basis of arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Needless to mention that there is no procedure prescribed in the Act no.XIII of 1972 for getting valuation of a property except as provided in Section 21(8) of the Act no.XIII of 1972.
The other contention of Chief Standing Counsel that utility of the building, in dispute was not changed in view of the fact that no construction addition, modification or alteration was made ever since it was let out to the Trade Tax Department in 1957, does also not have any force for the simple reason that second proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act no.XIII of 1972 provides that application for enhancement of rent may be made after expiry of period of five years from the date of last order of enhancement. Admittedly, the application was moved after five years of last order of enhancement of rent.
Also, enhancement of rent is not dependent on any construction/alteration/modification or addition in the building, rent is valued on escalation of the value of land and building. On the other hand, if any construction/addition/alteration or modification is made, it may be additional ground for arriving at a higher valuation of the building, in dispute.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dimissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.