STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. KUNDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the dispute involved in both the writ petitions relates to the order of enhancement of rent and its recovery from the petitioners, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 2823 of 2001 (M/s) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned orders dated 23-2-2000 passed 3 by the Additional District Judge Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1999 and order dated 13-10-1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority/sub-Divisional Officer, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Case No. 51/4 of 1990-91. By the order dated 13-10-1999, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application moved by the landlord under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and fixed the rent of the disputed building @ Rs. 7,0007- per month. The tenant-opposite party was di rected to pay the rent at the said rate to the applicant from the date of application. By the judgment and order dated 23- 2-2000, the ap peal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

(3.) THE application was contested by the petitioner-Bank and they admitted the respon dent No. 1 to be landlord and owner of the, building and also admitted the tenancy at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month from 28-11-1975. THEy have denied rest of the pleas. It has been alleged that the rent was enhanced @ Rs. 2000/- per month w. e. f. 23-4-1982 because the landlord has assured that he would increase the area of the building and would carry out the requisite repairs in the buildings, but even after assurance nothing was done by the land lord and the petitioners are paying the rent at the enhanced rate. It was also alleged that the landlord is not entitled to get enhancement rent from 29-12-1980. THE application of the landlord on the basis of valuation of the build ing on the market rate is wrong and not ten able.