Back
1998 Supreme(All) 1162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. Gupta, J.
SOM NATH VAISHYA - Appellant
Versus
VIITH ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 39191 Of 1997
Decided On : 10/14/1998
S.V.GOSWAMI
The appellate authority erred in rejecting the report of the registered valuer filed by the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous grounds and in holding that the leasehold land conferred no valid right to the petitioner.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - U. P. ACT 13 OF 1972, SEC. 21 (8) - ENHANCEMENT OF RENT - MARKET VALUE OF TENANTED PROPERTY - DETERMINATION - REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER - REJECTION - GROUNDS - IRRELEVANCE - IMPROPER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the landlord, filed an application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (the Act) for enhancement of rent, claiming that the market value of the tenanted property was not less than sixty lakhs and he was entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per month. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RCEO) allowed the application in part, assessing the market value of the land as 4.85 lacs and the building at 12.68 lacs, resulting in a monthly rent of Rs. 14,853. Both parties filed appeals, which were decided by the appellate authority in a common judgment. The petitioner challenged this judgment in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority had erred in rejecting the report of the registered valuer filed by the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous grounds. The valuer had inspected the site, prepared a plan, and made an endorsement that if major repairs were made, the building's life would extend for another 25 years. The appellate authority also erred in holding that the leasehold land conferred no valid right to the petitioner, as the lease was valid until 31.12.1999 and the building on the land was owned by the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the report of the registered valuer filed by the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous grounds. 2. Whether the appellate authority erred in holding that the leasehold land conferred no valid right to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate authority erred in rejecting the report of the registered valuer filed by the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous grounds. The valuer had inspected the site, prepared a plan, and made an endorsement that if major repairs were made, the building's life would extend for another 25 years. The appellate authority also erred in holding that the leasehold land conferred no valid right to the petitioner, as the lease was valid until 31.12.1999 and the building on the land was owned by the petitioner. 2. The appellate authority should have examined the material on record to find out the market value of the land in question.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the appellate authority, and directed the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and the observations made by the court.
( 1 ) THIS is landlords petition arising out of the decision of the respondent No. 1 dated 27. 9. 1997 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the one preferred by respondent No. 4 has been allowed.
( 2 ) THE dispute is in relation to the rate of rent of a building situated at 16 C. Y. Chintamanl Road. George Town, Allahabad which is admittedly in the occupation of respondent No. 4 as tenant on behalf of the petitioner, at the rate of Rs. 1,250 per month. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the enhancement of rent alleging therein that the market value of the tenanted property is not less than sixty lakhs and accordingly, he is entitled to get rent at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per month. The accommodation in dispute consists of a double storey building with land. The same was got assessed by Sri G. S. Birdie, a Chartered Engineer and Consulting Civil Engineer, who is also an approved and registered valuer for Immovable property for income-tax and other tax purposes. The report of the said expert was filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer from the side of the petitioner. According to the said report, the monthly rent of the building in question comes to Rs. 51,000 as per the following calculations : value of building a. (i) Ground floor : Area measuring 829. 02sq. 8. 29 lacsmts. at the rate of Rs. l,000 per sq. mts. (ii) Ist floor : Area measuring 449. 19 sq. mts. at 3. 59 lacsthe rate of Rs. 800 per sq. mts. (iii) Servant Quarter : Area measuring 160. 30 0. 80 lacssq. mts. at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq mts. Totsl value 12. 68 lacs value of Land b. Area 4622. 44 sq. mts. at the rate of Rs. 1,050 48. 53 lacs per sq. mts. Total market value 61. 21 lacs (12. 68* 48. 53)Monthly rent = [ (61. 21 x10) / 100] x (1/12) = 61. 00
( 3 ) THE respondents denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the building under tenancy is on lease land and is in a dilapidated condition and further that the lease has not been got renewed. No report of any valuer was, however, filed on their behalf, instead a copy of an application moved by one Chandra Pratap Singh under Section 133, Cr. P. C. and a letter purporting to be sent by Nagar Mahapalika in response to the letter of the City Magistrate, allahabad were filed on behalf of the respondents in order to demonstrate that the building is not in a perfect and sound condition.
( 4 ) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 30. 5. 1986 allowed the petitioners application in part after assessing the market value of the land as 4. 85 lacs calculated at 10% of the value determined by the petitioners valuer on the ground that the land was only a lease land. He accepted the value of the building at 12. 68 lacs and thus the total market value was determined as Rs. 17. 35 lacs and accordingly the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 14,853.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the R. C and E. O. both the parties filed separate appeals which have been decided by the respondent No. 1 by a common judgment dated 27. 9. 1997 and the same has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
( 6 ) SRI S. V. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned judgment contending that the appellate authority has rejected the uncontroverted report of the valuer filed on behalf of the petitioner on wholly untenable and irrelevant grounds and the report has been misread which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice to the petitioner inasmuch as he has been deprived of his valuable statutory right of getting the rent enhanced as per the market value of the land and building in question under the provisions of Section 21 (8) of the Act. On examination of the record, 1 find substance in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Irrespective of the fact that there was nothing on the record brought by the respondents ch
