Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 159
2007 UAD 160
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4003 of 2001
Old Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14136 of 1984
WITH
(1) W.P. (M/S) No. 4005 of 2001
Old CMWP No. 15223 of 1984
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
BIBI RANI DUGGAL & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 07.04.2006
For the Appellants : Mr. Nand Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Learned Counsel
For the Appellants : Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Learned Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Nand Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel
Headnote:(A) Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction of — Exercising of — Case of enhancement of rent — Separate valuation reports submitted by both parties — Such court instead of accepting such reports arrived at its own conclusion and fixed the rent accordingly — Submission that appellate court ought to have remanded matter to Prescribed Authority for considering valuation reports, misconceived — Court of appeal exercises jurisdiction vested in trial court — If appellate court itself considered valuation reports, not to be said that appellate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. (Para 9)
(B) Writ Petition — Jurisdiction under — Scrutiny of finding of fact not subject matter of writ jurisdiction — Unless it is shown that finding is perverse or appellate court committed manifest error of law. (Para 10)
¼v½ vihyh; U;k;ky; & {ks=kf/kdkj & iz;ksx & fdjk;k c<+kus dk ekeyk & nksuksa i{kdkjksa }kjk i`Fkd&i`Fkd ewY;kadu fjiksVZ izLrqr & vihyh; U;k;ky; ,slh fjiksVZ Lohdkj djus ds ctk; Lo;a ds fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pk rFkk rnuqlkj HkkM+k fuf'pr fd;k & dFku fd vihyh; U;k;ky; dks ewY;kadu fjiksVZ ds fopkj.k ds fy;s ekeyk fofgr izkf/kdj.k dks izfrizsf"kr djuk pkfg, Fkk] Hkez ij vk/kkfjr gS & vihyh; U;k;ky; fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa fufgr {ks=kf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djrk gS & ;fn vihyh; U;k;ky; us Lo;a ewY;kadu fjiksVZ dk fu#i.k fd;k] rks ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vihyh; U;k;ky; us ,sls {ks=kf/kdkj dk iz;ksx fd;k tks mlesa fufgr ugha FkkA
¼izLrj 9½
¼c½ fjV ;kfpdk & vUrxZr {ks=kf/kdkj & rF;ksa ds fu"d"kZ dh laoh{kk fjV {ks=kfèkdkj dh fo"k;&oLrq ugha gS & tc rd fd ;g u n'kkZ;k tk;s fd fu"d"kZ vuqfpr gS ;k vihyh; U;k;ky; us fof/k dh vfHkO;Dr =qfV dkfjr dh gSA ¼izLrj 10½
1. Since both these writ petitions arise out of the same impugned judgment and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 6.1.1984/A.D.M. (Admn.) Dehradun in Case No. 11 of 1982 Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal V. State of U.P. and another as well as common judgment and order dated 6.1.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge Dehradun passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 23 of 1984 and Rent Control Appeal No. 45 of 1984 preferred against the impugned order dated 6.1.1984 by both the parties separately and as common questions are involved for determination in both the writ petitions, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. By the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge Dehradun dated 4.7.1984 in Rent Control Appeal No. 23 of 1984 and Rent Control Appeal No. 45 of 1984 the appeal no. 45 of 1984 filed by the State was dismissed while the Appeal No. 23 of 84 preferred by the landlady Bibi Rani Duggal was allowed in part and the monthly rent of ‘Rani Villa’ was fixed Rs. 2230/-. Writ Petition No. 4005 of 2001 has been preferred by the landlady Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal against the same judgment and order dated 4.7.1984 aforesaid.
3. Relevant facts of the case are that Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal is the landlady of ‘Rani Villa’situate on Library kin-krag road in Mussoorie, which was let out to Divisional Forest Officer Yamuna Forest Division at annual rental of Rs. 1250/- in the year 1975. Since then a long period has elapsed. Application was moved by the landlady for enhancing the rent at Rs. 3,333.34 per month in view of the market value of the disputed premises. Before the Prescribed Authority, the application was contested by the State on the ground that the condition of the premises was not good hence enhancement of rent was not justified.
4. The learned Prescribed Authority after examining the material on record had held that the present market value of the disputed premises was not more than Rs. 90,028/- and accordingly fixed the monthly rent as Rs. 750.20 per month vide judgment and order dated 6.1.1984. Being aggrieved, both the parties went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun and both the appeals were registered separately. Before the appellate court, the valuation report of the Public Works Department was made part of the record. Regarding market value of the disputed premises, the landlady placed reliance upon the valuer’s report (paper no. 11/6) while the State relied upon the P.W.D. report brought on record. According to the landlady the market value of the disputed premises was Rs. 3,98,935/- after deducting depreciation of value. The learned appellate court rejected the P.W.D. report filed by the State and accepted the valuer’s report relied upon by the landlady.
5. The learned Additional District judge after examining the evidence on record ultimately came to the conclusion that the market value of the disputed accommodation was Rs. 2,67,685/- and 1/12th of 10% thereof comes to Rs. 2230.10. Accordingly, the monthly rent was fixed as Rs. 2230/- thereby the appeal preferred by the State was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the landlady was partly allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.1984.
6. Dis-satisfied by the impugned judgment and order, both the parties have come up before this Court in these two writ petitions.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record including the impugned orders passed by both the courts below.
8. In writ petition no. 4003 of 2001, the petitioner-State has challenged the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, it is evident that the appellate court has assigned reasons for not accepting the P.W.D. report filed by the State. The appellate court has also scrutinized the report submitted by Sri M.R.Khanna, Government appointed valuer and chartered en
