JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FIROZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Controversy in the instant petition has its genesis in an applica tion instituted by the petitioner-landlord on 11-7-1988 u/s. 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short Act No. 13 of 1972) for a hike in the rent of the building under the tenancy from Rs. 2400 to Rs. 18,400 per month. Indubitably, the premises in question has been in occupation of the L. I. C. of India through its Regional Manager, Firozabad on a monthly rent of Rs. 2400 over and above the local charges with effect from 1-7-1978.

(2.) THE market-value of the building (including land) according to the landlord, had run up to be Rs. 22,07,720 as on 'the date of the application' and it was on that basis that the rent was sought to be en hanced from Rs. 2400 to Rs. 18,397,70 per month Rs. 18,400 in round figure) being the amount equivalent to one- twelfth of the ten percent of the market-value of the build ing under tenancy in addition to the local charges and taxes. THE application was resisted by the respondent-tenant, inter alia, on the plea that the value of the building under tenancy in no way outweighed Rs. 3,45,000.

(3.) SRI N. K. Chaturvedi, learned coun sel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the land appurtenant to the building by reason of its abutting at the Bye-pass road, Firozabad ought to have been valued @ Rs. 1800 per sq. meter and the Authorities have fallen in error in determining the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per sq. meter which was the Prescribed circle rate for the land situated at Agra Gate and not the rate for land abutting at the Bye-pass road. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also sub mitted that the value of the construction given by the valuer produced on behalf of the petitioner, has been disapproved by the authorities without vetting intrinsic merit and value. SRI R. P. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urging that the value of the land has been rightly pegged at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per sq. meter. The value of the structure, according to him, was over rated by the valuer produced on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, it has rightly not received the nod of acceptance of the authorities.