YAMUNA PRASAD Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioners, before this Court are the land-lord of the premises being Araji No. 34/2, Block 3-4B, Mohalla Jagdishpur, Hospital Road, Tehsil Ballia, District Ballia. The premises in question is under the tenancy of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Ballia and his office is being run from the premises in question. Petitioners made an application under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of the rent, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006. According to the petitioners, the value of the construction was Rs. 1 lac and on adding the value of the land thereto, the monthly rent of the premises would work out to Rs. 8,856.66/-. This application was contested by respondent No. 1 i.e., Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 10th October, 2007, after considering the rival case pleaded by the parties held that the rental value of the premises in question was Rs. 1 lac and proceeded to determine the rent of the premises at Rs. 500/- per month. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioners filed an appeal under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 42 of 2007 before the District Judge, Ballia. In the appeal amongst others, it was contended that the value of the construction (super structure) was Rs. 1 lac and to the same value of the land had to be added having regard to the circle rate applicable and calculated on that basis, rent would work out to Rs. 8,856.66/- per month, as was being claimed by the landlord. The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioners-landlord has not found favour with the appellate authority i.e., Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Ballia. He has dismissed the appeal after recording a finding that the petitioners-landlord have accepted the value of the construction at Rs. 1 lac, the rent has to be calculated on the aforesaid value of the building only accordingly, it has been held that the rent of the premises would be Rs. 833/- per month. The plea of the petitioners that the value of the land should be added to the value of the construction (super structure) has not found favour with the appellate authority and he has proceeded to hold that it is only the value of the building, which has to be taken into consideration. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether the value of the land has to be added to the value of the constructions (super structure) for arriving at the market value of the building, for determining the rent under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 stands settled under the judgment of this Court in the case of Ishtiyaq Bano Begum and others v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur and others, 2008 73 AllLR 116, paragraph-5. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has completely been ignored by the Additional District Judge while passing the impugned order.

(2.) From the order of the appellate authority, it is clear that the value of land on which construction is standing has not been taken into consideration contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ishtiyaq Bano Begum .

(3.) The order of the appellate authority dated 22nd April, 2009, insofar as it refuses to add the value of the land to the value of the construction (super structure) for determining the market value of the property in question for determining the rent cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. The appeal No. 42 of 2007 is restored to its original number. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh, in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ishtiyaq Bano Begum and to determine the market value of the property accordingly for arriving at the rent payable in exercise of powers under section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1971. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.