STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner State Bank of India challenges an order dated 20.8.1994 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur on an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the said appeal has been allowed and the monthly rent of the building in question has been determined at Rs. 17,760 w.e.f. 1.9.1988 as against Rs. 9,872.50 paise per month determined by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent.

(3.) THE first contention raised by Shri Rakesh Bahadur was that the market value of the building was not mentioned in the application moved by the landlords and, therefore, no evidence to that effect could have been adduced. A copy of the application filed by the landlords is Annexure -2 to the writ petition. While it is true that the market value has not been specifically stated as such but since the landlord claimed that the monthly rent should be determined at Rs. 48,000 per month in accordance with the market value of the land under Section 21(8) of the Act, it was indirectly pleaded that the market value of the building was a figure the 1/12th of 10 percent of which was Rs. 48,000. Further, an application under the aforesaid proviso to Section 21(8) is not to be construed like a plaint or a written statement in a civil suit. No form of an application is prescribed nor are there any provisions regarding verification. This contention, therefore, that the petition was defective cannot prevail.