AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Sharma, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
Through this writ petition field by the tenants, Regional Food Controller Lucknow, District Food Marketing Officer, Hardoi and Senior Marketing Inspector, Hardoi, have assailed the judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the District Judge, Hardoi, a copy of which is contained in Annexure No. 1, to the writ petition. Through this order, the District Judge, Hardoi has dismissed the appeal filed by the tenants against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi enhancing the monthly rent of the disputed building.
The dispute pertains to the House No. 112, Mohalla Civil Lines, Canal Road, Hardoi. Earlier the property was owned by one Sri Ishwar Nath Kaul which was later on purchased by Sri Aradhya Awasthi, opposite party No. 1. After execution of the sale deed dated 29.8.2002, this building measuring 335.67 sq. mt. was rented out at a meagre rent of Rs. 27 per month for the residential portion and Rs. 26.55 per month was being paid for the nonresidential portion of the house. The new landlord moved application under section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of rent as on the basis of the market value of the disputed house along with the land was not less than Rs. 10.00 lakh and the rent paid was too inadequate. The documents relating to circle rates and other relevant material were placed in support of the application for enhancement of the rent. The opposite parties had opposed the application on the ground that P.W.D. valued the disputed house to the extent of Rs. 3,94,514.00 and as such no enhancement of rent could be allowed. The learned District Magistrate after hearing the submissions of the contesting parties had taken the valuation of the disputed land in dispute as Rs. 6,81,000. He has assessed the valuation on the basis of circle rate fixed by the Collector for the purpose of stamp duty payable on the sale deed. The District Magistrate assessed the monthly rent as Rs. 5,675 and it was made admissible to the landlord w.e.f. August, 2003. This enhancement was revisable after five years.
Being aggrieved of the said order passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi, the petitioners tenants had preferred a statutory appeal challenging the said order. The District Judge, Hardoi considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and assessed the material on record as well as the scheme of relevant rent control laws that the District Magistrate has power to enhance the monthly rent of a building let out to the public authority including the Government department. The rent has to be equivalent to the 112th of 10% of the market value of the building under the tenancy. The District Magistrate has to determine the market value of the building under the tenancy before directing enhancement of the rent. The District Magistrate has taken into account the valuation report submitted by the landlord according to which the disputed land was valued to the extent of Rs. 6,81,000. The District Magistrate has dealt with both the reports, the material brought on record i.e. Civil Engineer''s report submitted by the landlord and P.W.D. Engineering Department, placed by the tenants. Since these were not supported by the affidavits, applying the law laid down by this Court, these were not taken into account for the purpose of valuation of the above property. It is evident from the record that the District Magistrate has determined the market value of the building and land in keeping in view the circle rate fixed by the Collector, Hardoi for the purpose of stamp duty payable on the sale deeds.
Under the provisions of relevant Stamp Act and Rules, the Collector is under obligation to prescribe the circle rate on the basis of the prevailing market rate in the area. These prices are fixed as per the statutory provisions. The rates so prescribed are binding on the State until shown or proved to be incorrect. In the present case the tenants had failed to establish before the District Magistrate and the District Judge the clerical rates determined by the District Magistrate were incorrect.
Accordingly, the valuation of the disputed building was to be taken into account as Rs. 6,81,000 which was not take as excessive or unreasonable by the District Judge as there was no material on record to controvert the findings. The District Judge has also assessed the material brought before it. The disputed building situate on a piece of land is 335.67 sq. mt. Its covered area on the ground floor and the first floor was about 223.79 sq. mt. The Rs. 226.55 to Rs. 27 per month as rent for such a big property was too meagre and it could not be defined as rent in the eye of law.
The learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a judgment in State of U.P. v. Narendra Nath Dixit and other, 1993 All Cj. 470. in support of his submissions.
Considering the valuation of the property and the other material on record, there is no error of law of facts in the judgment of learned District Judge, Hardoi. It is a wellconsidered and reasoned judgment and no interference is required by this Court.
The writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioners are direct to ensure compliance of the order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi. The arrears of rent shall be paid to the landlord respondent No. 1, within three months from today along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. over the unpaid amount.