State of U.P. vs Yamuna Prasad and Others

Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri T.P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner State of U.P. has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to challenge the judgment and order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge allowing Rent Appeal No. 42 of 2007 arising out of proceedings under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Appellate Court by the said judgment and order has fixed the fair rent of the property in dispute at Rs. 8054/- per month w.e.f. 29.5.2006, the date on which the application for enhancement of rent under section 21(8) of the Act was presented. The house in dispute which is situate on Araji No. 34/2 Block 3-4B, Mohalla Jagdishpur, Hospital Road, Ballia is the property of the respondents and part of it is under tenancy of the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide allotment order dated 5.9.1970. The area under tenancy of the petitioner is 1028 square feet equivalent to 96.28 square meter.

The above portion was allotted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month which was subsequently enhanced vide order 18.12.1999 to Rs. 450/- per month.

The respondents in order to get its rent further enhanced at the market value again applied for its fixation under section 21(8) of the Act in the year 2006.

The District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 10.10.2007 enhanced its rent to Rs. 500/- per month. In appeal No. 42 of 2007 preferred by the respondents the Additional District Judge vide judgment and order dated 22.4.09 further enhanced it to Rs. 833/- per month. Still not satisfied by the rent so fixed by the Courts below, the respondents filed Yamuna Prasad and others v. Settlement Officer of Consolidation and others Writ Petition No. 26710 of 2009 The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2011 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for re-deciding the appeal in the light and the principles of law laid down in the case of Ishityaq Bono Begum and others v. ADJ Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur and others 2008 (73) ALR 116.

It is in pursuance of the above that the appeal came up for reconsideration before the Additional District Judge and has been allowed by the impugned judgment by which the rent has been fixed at Rs. 8054/- per month.

In Ishityaq Bano Begum (supra) this Court has laid down that in determining the fair rent of a building, not only the market value of the building is to be taken into account but also the market value of the land underneath the same and further that for the purposes of determining the market value the exemplar method is the best method.

The respondents though contended that the market value of the building is much higher but accepted its value to be Rs. 1,00,000/- as suggested by the petitioner.

The market value of the land having an area of 96.28 sq. meter under tenancy of the petitioner was determined on the basis of the exemplar sale-deed dated 23.4.2005 which was in respect of Araji No. 34/6 which was in closed vicinity of the Araji of the house in dispute No. 34/2. According to the said exemplar the prevailing market value of the land was sold @ Rs. 9000/- per sq. meter.

Thus, applying the said rate of Rs. 9000/- per meter the market value of the tenanted portion of the land was determined as Rs. 8,66,520/- and by adding the market value of the building i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- the total value was determined as Rs. 9,66,520/-. The Appellate Court as per the formula provided under section 21(8) of the Act took 10% of the aforesaid market value and by dividing it by 12 as provided, determined the rental value to be Rs. 8054/- per month.

There appears to be no error or illegality in calculating and fixing the above rent of the tenanted portion of the building @ 2008 (73) ALR 116 8054/- per month.

The submission of learned Standing Counsel that the tenancy is very old and building is in dilapidated condition is of no force inasmuch as the rent has been fixed on the basis of the market value of the property and there is no illegality in the determination of the market value by the Appellate Court.

The market value of the building/structure has been taken as agreed by the parties. Therefore, no depreciation on account of the age or dilapidated condition of the building is permissible. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.