- (1.) KHEM Karan, J. All the three writ petitions, mentioned above, are connected with each other, hence they are being dis posed of by this common order.
(2.) HEARD Sri Haider Hussain, the learned standing Counsel for the State and S/sri B. N. Agrawal and J. P. Likhdhari, learned counsel for the landlord. Admittedly the accommodation in question is in the tenancy of the State and Pooran Mal Agrawal is its landlord. It transpires from the perusal of the record that Pooran Mal Agrawal moved one application under Section 21 (8) of Act No. 13 of 1972for enhancement of the rent. The State of U. P. opposed it. During the course of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed a valuation report prepared by some engineer and according to it, the valuation of the building as well as the land was Rs. 10,60, (XX ). The State also filed its valuation report and according to it, the valuation of the building (excluding the vacant land) was Rs. 5,30,000. The Prescribed Authority also perhaps suo motu called for a report from the Tahsildar on the point of valuation of the building in ques tion. Tahsildar gave a report that the valua tion of the building and the land was Rs. 8,50,000. Thus, there were three valuation reports before the Prescribed Authority. Learned Counsel for the State has informed during the course of arguments, which has not been disputed by the other side, that the State did not file objection disputing that part of the report of Tahsil dar, by which he valued the land besides the building.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority disposed of the matter vide its order dated 12-1-98. He accepted the valuation report sub mitted by the Tahsildar and accordingly valued the building and the land measur ing 2058 sq. feet at Rs. 7,69,000. According to him, the rent on such valuation was to be fixed at Rs. 6,400 a month, but he reduced this amount to Rs. 4,000 taking into con sideration the miserable condition of the building and the fact that the increase in the rent was to put a burden on the State Exchequer. The State as well as the landlord both preferred appeals under Section 22 of the said Act. The learned District Judge, disposed of both the appeals by his judg ment and order dated 17-11-98. He ac cepted the valuation put by the Tahsildar and accordingly increased the rent to Rs. 7,100 and to that extent allowed the appeal of the landlord. The appeal preferred by the State was dismissed in toto.;