S.C.VERMA, J. - (1.) IN this petition, the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 29.1.1987 passed under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the order dated 6.10.1989 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur have been challenged.
(2.) DISPUTED premises No. 2/2344, Kutchery Road, Civil Lines, Pal Bridge, Saharanpur is in the tenancy of the Sales Tax Department. The building was taken on rent in the year 1957 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- for use of office purposes. It may be stated that the respondent No. 3 had also filed an application for enhancement of rent in respect of building No. 2/2344/1. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 3.1.1983 dismissed the application for enhancement of rent with regard to building No. 2/2344/1 but enhanced the rent of building No. 2/2344 from Rs. 300/- per month to Rs. 2,067 per month. Both the petitioner and the respondent filed appeals before the learned Judge. The appeal filed by the petitioner tenant in respect of accommodation 2/2344 was registered as Appeal No. 21 of 1983 and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 as Appeal No. 80 of 1983. The respondent No. 3 also filed appeal in respect of building No. 2/2344/1 being Appeal No. 22 of 1983. Appeal No. 21 of 1983 as well as Appeal No. 80 of 1983 in respect of building No. 2/2344 was allowed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge by order dated 14.8.1986 and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for redetermination of rent. In the remand order, it was observed by the learned District Judge that the market value of the building should have been determined first before determining the market value of the land and thereafter the value of the building should be added as the value of the land underneath the construction was also to be taken into account. The appeal No. 22 of 1983 was dismissed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer this time by order dated 29.1.1987 determined the rent of the building No. 2/2344 as Rs. 5,622.87 per month. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the VIIth Additional District Judge by order dated 6.10.1989.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the market value of the building to be determined should be of the building as defined under Section 3(1) of the Act. Thus for the aforesaid determination, the building and the land appurtenant to the building should be taken into account and the valuation of the land underneath the construction could not be considered for determining the market value of the building. It has further been argued that the market value of the building has been wrongly determined at Rs. 1,76,269/- as also the market value of the land at Rs. 4,99,670/-.;