Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition was dismissed by me vide order dated 8.3.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-bank which is a public sector undertaking against the appellate order dated 23.4.1992 passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as against the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 7.2.1992. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that in view of the provisions of Section 21 (8) which is reproduced below, the petitioner being a public sector undertaking is immune from facing the application by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) (b) on the ground that it will be open to the landlord to apply for enhancement of the rent on the principles laid down in Sub-section (8) of Section 21. "21 (8) Nothing in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the prescribed authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom Clause (ii) or Clause (iv) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) is applicable : Provided that in the case of such a building, the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefor, to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application : Provided farther that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement."
(3.) The aforesaid Sub-section (8) of Section 21 further provides that it is open to the landlord to move another application for enhancement of the rent after expiry of five years. This legislative scheme clearly demonstrates that the period of five years has been fixed for the revision of the rent on the principle that normally the local authority within whose jurisdiction the building is situated, are entitled to revise the annual value of the building quinquinally (after every five years). In the present case, the rent payable by the tenant was Rs. 2,885 per month when the landlord filed the application under Section 21 (8) of the Act out of which the present writ petition arises. On the application of the landlord filed in the year 1990, petitioner has been afforded full opportunity to file their objections and affidavits and after hearing the parties normally the landlord and the tenant till the authorities below came to the conclusion that the rent of the building payable by the petitioner ought to be Rs. 8,600 per month and an appeal to the appellate authority by the petitioner-tenant is dismissed. Thus, this writ petition.;