PADMA TANDON Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 15th December, 1994 rendered in the appeal filed by the landlady under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been challenged in these two writ petitions which have been filed by the landlady and the tenant. The appeal had been filed by the landlady against the order dated 26th August, 1981 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the proceedings that had been initiated by her under Section 21(8) of the Act for enhancement of the monthly rent. The landlady felt dissatisfied with the partial enhancement of the monthly rent by the Appellate Authority and so the prayer made in the writ petition filed by her is for enhancing the monthly rent determined by the Appellate Court to that amount claimed by her in the application filed under Section 21(8) of the Act, while the prayer made in the writ petition filed by the tenant is for setting aside the enhancement of the monthly rent by the Appellate Court.

(2.) SMT . Padma Tandon is the landlady of Bungalow No. 7 Mission Road, Allahabad (now Bungalow No. 19), while the Head Mistress, Government Girls Normal School, Allahabad is the tenant of the said premises. The landlady moved an application on 16th January, 1979 under Section 21(8) of the Act for enhancement of the monthly rent with the allegation that the market value of the building, on the basis of the details set-out in Annexures 1 and 2 to the application, is approximately Rs. 26,63,474/- and, therefore, the annual rent of the building on such valuation calculated at the rate of 10% of the market value of the building in accordance with the provisions of Section 21(8) of the Act would come to Rs. 2,66,347.40. The monthly rent, accordingly, would be Rs. 22,195.62, which rent was claimed by her, apart from the water tax, with effect from the month of February 1979. The landlady also filed a valuation report dated 5th May, 1979 submitted by Sri Tara Chand, Government approved Valuer, wherein after inspection, appraisal and analysis he assessed the value of the property as on 16th January, 1979 at Rs. 23,97,000/-. The valuation of the property was done by Land and Building Method in which the valuation of the structures was assessed at Rs. 3,17,261/- and the value of the land measuring 16,640 sq. metres at the rate of Rs. 125 per sq. metre was assessed at Rs. 20,80,000/-Thus, the total value of the property was assessed at Rs. 23,97,000/-.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, both the landlady and the tenant filed appeals before the District Judge under Section 22 of the Act. At the appellate stage, the landlady also filed the report of the Tehsil authorities dated 18th December, 1978 wherein the valuation of the land, trees and well was assessed at Rs. 20,05,700/-. The landlady also filed an affidavit of Sri Tara Chand mentioning therein that he was a qualified Engineer for the last 36 years who was working as an Hony. Professor in the Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College, Allahabad and was a registered Valuer of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi for Wealth and Income Tax purposes. He stated that he had inspected the building and prepared the valuation report dated 5th May, 1979 and he had again inspected the property on 20th November, 1981 and prepared the report dated 28th November 1981 which was enclosed alongwith the affidavit. Before the Appellate Court the tenant also filed objections to the application filed by the landlady under Section 21(8) of the Act mentioning therein that the valuation given by the landlady in the application on the basis of Annexures 1 and 2 was excessive; that the land was Government Estate land which could not be transferred without prior permission of the State of U.P.; that the market value of the disputed building was hardly Rs. 45000/- and that the report of the valuation filed by the landlady was based on surmises and conjectures and was not reliable. The landlady filed a reply to the said objections filed by the tenant mentioning therein that in the affidavit filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by Ram Pal Singh, the valuation of the building was admitted as Rs. 10 lacs and that it was incorrect to state that the land in question over which the building was situated was Government Estate land since the land was free-hold land and could be transferred without the permission of the District Magistrate or the State Government. The tenant also filed documentary evidence to bring on record certain sale-deeds and agreements to sell to which a reply was filed by the landlady.