State of Uttaranchal vs Additional District Judge-IV and Others

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri V.K. Kholi learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel.

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.8.2000 and 19.6.2002 (Annexure 6 and 7 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Dehradun.

Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 3-Om Prakash Sukhija being the owner of the Dehradun Property No. 9/ 4, Ashly Hall, Ground Floor had let out the property to the tenant-District Information Officer, Dehradun @ Rs. 150/- per month. The respondent No. 3 has filed an application u/s 21 (8) of the U.P. Act, 1972 for enhancement of the rent to the extent of Rs. 6,666.66 on the ground that the market value of the property is about more than Rs. 8 lakhs and the area of premises is 600 sq. ft. The respondent No. 3 has stated that the market value of property being Rs. 8 lakhs and he is entitled for a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten percent of the market value of the building under tenancy.

The petitioner has filed the objections before the respondent stating therein that the disputed property is in a dilapidated condition and the sum Rs. 6,666.66 as rent of the disputed property calculated by the respondent No. 3 is exorbitant one.

Before dealing with the arguments of both the parties, it is necessary to incorporate Section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the same is quoted below:-

"Nothing in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognized educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom Clause (ii) or Clause (iv) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) is applicable;

Provided that in case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefore to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten percent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application;

Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement."

On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has calculated the market value of the disputed property to the extent of Rs. 2,66,295.00/-whereas the landlord had calculated the market value of the disputed property to the extent of Rs. 8,18,000/-. The findings of the prescribed authority are quoted below:-

^^oknh }kjk vius dFku dks iqf"V esa ''kiFki= oknh Jh vkseizdk''k] vkfpZVsDV Jh vkbZ� th� feykspk }kjk izLrqr iz''uxr lEifRr dks ewY;kadu dk ''kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk foi{kh dh vksj ls ftyk lwpuk vf/kdkjh dk ''kiFk i= ,oa vkfpZVsDV oSY;wvj Jh bUnzflag }kjk fufeZr iz''uxr lEifRr dks ewY;kadu vk[;k izLrqr dh gS ftlds vuqlkj mDr lEifRr dh dqy ewY;kadu vk[;k :� 2]66]295@& vkadh xbZ gSA

oknh dh vksj ls foi{kh }kjk izLrqr izfrmRrj ds mRrj esa viuk jh&Y;kbUMj izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa muds }kjk eq[;r% foi{kh }kjk izLrqr mRrj o ewY;kadu fjiksVZ dk izfrokn fd;k gSA eSaus izLrqr okn esa nksuksa i{kksa ds ;ksX; vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl lquh] ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA oknh }kjk ;g okn m�iz� fd�fu� ,oa fu� vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk �8� ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA oknh }kjk iz''uxr lEifRr dh ewY;kadu fjiksVZ fu;kekuqlkj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

1- fufeZr lEifRr dh dqy �kl de djds 4]06]000@&

2- Hkwfe dh dher dqy {ks=Qy 206 oxZehVj 4]12]000@&

dqy dher %

&&&&&&&

8]18]000@&

&&&&&&&

The valuation report submitted by the tenant is quoted below:-

v fufeZr {ks=Qy 1260 oxZehVj ewY;nj : 150@& izfroxZQhV 1]89]000@&

[k fufeZr lEifRr dk 75 o"kZ iqjkuk {ks=Qy dk �kl tks dher dk 60 izfr''kr ls fn;k x;k gS 1]13]400@&

&&&&&&&

2]66]295

&&&&&&&

The value of the land has also to be taken into account as held by the Apex Court in 1992 (2) ARC 271 in State of U.P. and Ors. v. XIIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and Ors.. It has been held as under:-

"After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that in the definition of building u/s 3 (i) of the Act, there is no express exclusion of the value of land on which the building stands. In the absence of such express exclusion, the land being intrinsically separable from the building standing thereon, the value of the land and the value of the structure or building should be taken into consideration and in our view the land on which the building stands together with the building or structure constitute one composite unit. It may similar parcel of land may differ substantially on account of location advantage of the site it question. The difference of valuation of land because of such location advantage creps into the valuable than the other although from the structural point of view, both the buildings are identical. In the aforesaid circumstances, the determination of valuation of the building by taking into consideration the value of illegal and improper. In any case, the definition of "building" under the Act clearly shows that the building thereunder means roof structure including the land underneath the said structure. Inclusive part of the definition only relate to the land appurtenant to such building and not to the land underneath the roof structure."

The valuation report of the petitioner has completely ignored the value of the land given by the landlord. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly added the value of the land as well on the valuation apart from the constructed portion.

In State of U.P. v. Ratan Kishore Johri and Anr. reported in 2002 ARC (1) 565, it has been held as under:-

"In the present case there were two reports with regard to the market value, one by approved Government Valuer and other by non-approved valuer. In my opinion authorities have committed no error much less error on the face of record so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if he has accepted the report of the Government approved valuer."

Keeping in view of the above, the prescribed authority as well as the appellate Court have passed the order after taking consideration of both the reports and the same therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.

In Indian Overseas Bank v. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar 2002 ARC (1) 586, it has been held as under:

"The very fact that the original application was filed in the year 1990 and the writ petition is being hear in the year 2002 in between at least two more revisions ought to have been taken place for the pendency of the present writ petition nothing has been done.

I have gone through the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the for the Appellate Authority and in my opinion both the authorities have recorded the findings of fact which do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. It is also settled that even if two views are possible and the authority has taken one view, that is not a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

It has been held in State of U.P. v. Ratan Kishore Johri and Anr. 2002 ARC (1) 565, as under:-

"In the present case there were two reports with regard to the market value, on by the approved Government Valuer and other by non-approved valuer. In my opinion authorities have committed no error much less error on the record so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if he has accepted the report of the Government approved valuer."

Consequently, the order passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority requires no interference.

The authorities therefore, have committed no error, so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

However, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire amount due against him by 30th August, 2004.