- (1.) A. K. Yog. J. Present petitioner is the tenant on agreed rent at the rate of Rs. 600 per month of premises No. 19-B, Kalidas Road, Dehradun on the basis of admitted registered lease deed. A notice was given by the landlord to enhance rent as contemplated under Section 21 (8), U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (called 'the Act*) and thereafter an application under the Act praying for fixing rent (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) was filed before District Magistrate, Delegated Authority. The tenant-petitioner filed written statement. Parties led evidence as they desired.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 22-12- 1983 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition) allowed the application of the landlord. THE Delegated Authority A. D. M. (Admin), Dehradun, after considering relevant evidence in view of the ingredients of Section 21 (8) of the Act, found that rent was to be enhanced in view of the valuation of the premises in ques tion i. e. was Rs. 1,88,000 and on that basis held that landlord was entitled to rent of Rs. 1,566. 60, this is w. e. f. 1-11-1979. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed appeal No. 8 of 1984 and cross appeal No. 7 of 1974 was filed by landlord before Dis trict Judge, Dehradun. Both the appeals have been decided by common judgment and order dated 23-3-1985 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition ). The Appellate Authority held that correct valuation of the premises in ques tion was Rs. 2,38,000 and that landlord was entitled to Rs. 1,983. per month as rent while tenant's appeal No. 8 of 1984 was dismissed, the landlord's appeal No. 7 of 1984 was partly allowed holding rent was to be Rs. 1,983 per month only w. e. f. 1-11-1979 (and not Rs. 2,000 per month as claimed by landlord ). Being dissatisfied tenant has filed this petition under Article 226, Constitu tion of India. Heard learned Standing Counsel (for the petitioner) and learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 1. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 in the petition cannot be appreciated unless evidence is re-appreciated which cannot be allowed under Article 226, Constitution of India. The Appellate Authority has recorded finding of fact after considering evidence on record. There is allegation that finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is perverse or the same has been recorded by adopting an approach which a normal per son cannot be expected to adopt. Learned Standing Counsel miserably failed to point out that finding recorded by Appellate Authority are erroneous or otherwise vitiated. In fact no attempt whatsoever was made to assail the findings and petitioner made no effort to press these grounds.
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel ar gued that application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable inas much as U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is not applicable to the premises in question. He, however, conceded that no such plea finds place in the written statement; copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition. Learned Standing Counsel also admitted on question being put by the Court that there is no discussion on the points in any of the judgment passed by the District Magistrate or the Appellate Authority. Apparently no such pi urged and pressed and impugned order as such cannot be faulted or interfered with now. Learned Standing Counsel, how ever, submitted that in ground No. 1 in the Memo of Appeal (before Appellate Authority Annexure II to the Writ Peti tion) this plea has been taken. Mere men tioning a ground in Memo of Appeal is not enough if it is not actually argued and pressed before the Court below. There is no mention in the Writ Petition that this point was in fact relied upon, urged and pressed before the Appellate Authority and still it has been ignored. Learned Standing Counsel admits that there is no mention of the said issue in the appellate judgment. It is, therefore, to be presumed that this point was not relied upon before the Appellate Authority.;