Hon. Rajesh Tandon J.-Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All the writ petitions have been filed against the orders dated 1.5.1992 and 25.6.1991 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Dehradun and Prescribed Authority, Dehradun respectively. Writ petition No. 3435 of 2001 and 3436 of 2001 have been filed for setting aside the order of enhancement of rent and Writ Petition No. 4154 of 2001 has been filed for further enhancement of rent.

3. Briefly stated, an application was filed by the respondent under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 praying for enhancement of rent in respect of premises No. 17, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, area 1177 Sq. ft. Out of which 1493 Sq. ft is the covered area. According to the case of the landlord originally rent was Rs. 125/- per month. According to the landlord premises in dispute is valued at Rs. Four lakh and 1/10 of the smae comes to Rs. 40,000/-. Thus the monthly rent of the building comes to 1/12 of Rs. 40,000/- i.e. Rs.3,333.34.

4. The petitioners have filed objection and have disputed the valuation as claimed by the landlord. According to the State valuation of the building is Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- only. The landlord in order to prove the valuation has filed the valuation report of Manocha & Associates, 72 Ansari Marg, Dehradun. He has vlaued the land for Rs. 2,37,600.00 and valuation of the building for Rs. 4,34,412.00. The defendants filed the valuation report of Sri Suraj prakash Agarwal. He has valued the building for Rs. 1,44,000.00 to the extent of constructed portion alone. Before the prescribed authority evidence was laid to the extent that according to the market rate a sum of Rs. 1,500/- Sq. M. has been fixed by the Collector. The prescribed authority has taken into consideration of area of 152.40 Sq.M. and @ Rs. 750/- per Sq. M. The prescribed authority valued the building for Rs. 1,96,812/- and calculated the value of the land for Rs. 1,18,800/-. He has also deducted 30% depreciation from the value of the building. The prescribed authority has calculated the rent to the following effect:

5. The landlord has filed the appeal being appeal no. 53 of 1991 praying for fixation to the extent of Rs. 3,333.34 paisa per month. State of U.P. has also filed the appeal being appeal no. 43 of 1992.

6. The appellate Court has fixed the rent for Rs. 2,600/- per month.

Relevant paragraph of the judgment in appeal is quoted below:

11. Taking the market value of the disputed accommodation as Rs. 1,96,000/- and that of the land as Rs. 1,18,800/- totalling Rs. 3,14,800/-, the monthly rent of the disputed accommodation comes to Rs. 2623/- say Rs. 2600/- per month plus statutory taxes admissible under Section 7 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.

7. The application was filed as back as in the year 1990 and since 1990 the landlord has become entitled to enhance the rent at least thrice and in view of that I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the two courts below. So far as the fixation of the rent is concerned the same should have been made keeping in view the cost of the land as well as the constructed portion.

8. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the land being a nazool land, the calculation has been wrongly made by the prescribed authority.

9. A perusal of the record shows that the renewal of the lease was made in favour of the landlord upto March 31, 2020.

10. The appellate court has taken into consideration the valuation of the land on the basis of the possessory title in the disputed land being the permanent allottee. The market value has been calculated to the extent of Rs. 1,18,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,96,000/- towards the valuation of the disputed premises after deducting the depreciation at the rate of 30% (thirty percent), the valuation was fixed to the extent of Rs. 1,44,000/-. The valuation has been calculated on the basis of government approved policy Sri Suraj Prakash Agarwal taking the aforesaid rate of Rs. 100 per sq. feet, whereas the valuer has determ