STATE OF U P Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the State of Uttar Pradesh, tenant-petitioners challenge the order dated 23rd October, 2003, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short 'the Act'), whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the contesting respondent-landlord and set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 21st March, 2003 and the application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act' has been allowed fixing the rent of the premises in question at the rate of Rs.11,758/- per month in place of Rs.609.60 per month with effect from October, 1997.

(2.) In short, the brief facts of the present case are that the State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioners in this petition is the tenant of the premises in question to which the respondent Jugal Kishore is the landlord. The landlord filed an application dated 13th October, 1997 under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act' before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating therein that Jugal Kishore is the owner and landlord of the premises in question and that the petitioners is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.609.60. Despite request being made by the landlord, since tenant has not increased the rate of rent, the present application is filed for enhancement of the rent. The tenant contested the aforesaid application filed by the landlord interalia on the ground that there has been an agreed rate of rent between the landlord and the tenant of Rs.609.60 per month, which is being regularly paid by the tenant to the landlord, therefore the application under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act' is not maintainable. It is also stated by the tenant that no notice for enhancement was given to the tenant prior of the filing of application under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act'. The further stand by the tenant is that the rent is being paid to the landlord as per Government Order issued by the State Government, it was therefore prayed by the tenant that the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act' is liable to be rejected.

(3.) After the exchange of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 31st May, 1999 rejected the aforesaid application filed by the landlord. The landlord therefore preferred an appeal against the order rejecting the application under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act' by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before the appellate authority-District Judge concern. The appellate authority vide its order dated 18th February, 2000 set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31st May, 1999 and remanded the matter back for decision after giving opportunity to the parties. After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 21st November, 2001 rejected the application filed by the landlord. The landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the order dated 21st November, 2001 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The appellate authority vide order dated 13th December, 2002 remanded back the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with the positive direction to decide the case after considering the evidence already adduced by the parties and in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgement of the appellate authority. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer pursuant to the aforesaid remand after considering the evidence and hearing the parties passed an order rejecting the landlord's application under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act' vide order dated 21st March, 2003. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 21st March, 2003, the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority learned counsel for the tenant pressed the point that the agreement executed between the parties for the rent at the rate of Rs.609.60 per month in the year 1997 is binding and no application for enhancement of the rent can be made under Section 21 (8) of 'the Act' within a period of five years, whereas the present application has been filed by the landlord on 13th October, 1997 within five years rather the very next month of the contract of the rent and lease. It is further argued that the report of the valuer does not mention about any depreciation in the value of the premises in question and further the valuer is not a registered valuer, therefore the report submitted by the landlord of its valuer cannot be accepted. The petitioners-tenant relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2003 (1) A.R.C., 553 - Gurmeet Kaur (Smt.) Vs. 3rd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others, wherein this Court on the facts of the case has held