High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State Of U.P. Thru' Collector And Others v. Smt. Ahilya Sharma - WRIT - A No. 31351 of 2007  RD-AH 12048 (16 July 2007)
Court no. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31351 of 2007
State of U.P. and another versus Smt. Ahilya Sharma
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent landlady filed an application under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before Additional District Magistrate (City), Meerut against the petitioners for enhancement of rent of building no. 309/310, Hari Niwas, Caroli Road, Begum Bagh, Meerut to the tune of Rs.73, 095/-. The petitioners filed their written statements. Both the petitioners as well as the respondent also filed valuation reports in support of their respective cases.
The Additional District Magistrate (City), Meerut vide his order dated 27.1.2007 rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that the Nirashrit Mahilas are residing in the disputed building and that if the rent is enhanced, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The contention of the counsel for the landlady before the Prescribed Authority was that the building was taken on rent by the State Government and not by the Nirashrit Mahila and therefore, the State Government was liable to pay rent and not the Nirashrit Mahila. The Prescribed Authority held that from the record it appears that the circle rate of the building was Rs. 5,000/- per sq.meter whereas the circle rate shown by the landlady was Rs. 7,000/- per sq. meter for residential plots.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.1.2007 the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate Court which was allowed vide order dated 30.3.2007 accepting the version of the tenants and reduced rent to Rs. 41,667/- on the basis of admitted amount of valuation of petitioner-tenant i.e. Rs. 5,000/- per sq.meter.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.9, Meerut.
The only contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there is common passage of the building which is being used by the petitioners as well as the landlady and that the rent fixed by the appellate Authority is illegal and incorrect.
No other point has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner.
The case of the landlady was that according to circle rate the valuation of the tenanted building comes to Rs. 87,71,380/- and that in view of Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the respondent landlady is entitled to monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 73,095/-.
Admittedly, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner has been accepted by the appellate authority and it calculated the rent on the basis of the value of land which has been admitted by the tenants itself and also reduced the rent for the use of the common passage.
The counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the appellate authority.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.