HUSSAINI BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises from proceeding under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regualtion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for short Act initiated against the Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, opposite party No. 2 by Smt. Husaini Begum, petitioner, through the application under the said provision the petitioner claimed enhancement of rent payable to her by the opposite party No. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be briefly stated : - The petitioner filed application under Section 21(8) of the Act on the basis that she was the owner and landlady of Kothi No. 295/3 situate at Asharfabad, Deen Dayal Road, Lucknow and that opposite party No. 2 was tenant in the said Kothi at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The total area of the land was 21,859 sq ft. and land in the area where the disputed property was situated was selling at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq ft. In this manner the valuation of the land alone came to Rs. 2,18,590. Constructed area on the first floor was alleged to 8200 sq. ft. and valuation of this constructed area at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. came to Rs. 3,64,000/-. The constructed area on the first floor was alleged to be 504 sq. ft. and the valuation of this area calculated at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq. ft. came to Rs. 76,560. According to the petitioner the total valuation of this building together with this land came to Rs. 5,85,150/-. The petitioner's case was that under the first Proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act, she was entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 4,876/- while the opposite party No. 2 was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- only. She accordingly claimed enhancement of rent of Rs. 4,876/-.

(2.) THE above application was opposed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. He admitted that he was tenant of the accommodation in dispute at the rent of Rs. 200 per month, but he denied the market value of the building and the rent claimed by the petitioner. It was pressed that the application made by the petitioner was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) SRI S.M. Nasir, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Notice of the petitioner was given to the learned Chief Standing Counsel on August 27, 1982, but till this date no counter-affidavit has been filed either by the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposite party No. 1, or by the Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 3 is District Judge, Lucknow who decided the appeal while opposite party No. 4 is the District Supply Officer (Rent Control and Eviction Officer), Lucknow who decided the application originally as Prescribed Authority. I have heard Sri S.M. Nasir, learned counsel for the petitioner.