ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the State of U.P. against an order passed by the delegatee of the District Magistrate and the appellate authority on an application filed by the landlord under sub -section (8) of Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the revision of the rent.
(2.) SECTION 21 (1)(a) and Section 21 (8) are reproduced below : 21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant. - (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely - (a) that the building is bona fide, required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust; 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 therefore 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 further 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. A perusal of the Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 21(8) which is also quoted above clearly demonstrates that the right of the landlord in case, the accommodation in question is let out to the State Government has been taken away for moving an application even for his own personal requirement on the ground that he can move to the District Magistrate for revising the rent of the accommodation upward. The landlord in the present case has moved an application for revision of the rent as contemplated in Section 21(8). This application dated 30 -9 -1985 has been allowed by the designated authority by its order dated 12 -2 -1992 : By the aforesaid order dated 12 -2 -1992 the rent of the accommodation in dispute was fixed at Rs. 2216 per month. Against this order the State Government preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by the designated authority. The order of the appellate authority is of 16 -2 -1996. The sole point advanced by the learned Standing Counsel in this writ petition is that the authorities below have given preference to the report of the Government approved valuer which was filed on behalf of the landlord over the report of non -approved valuer filed by the State Government for the purposes of arriving at the market value of the building. Section 21(8) has not been prescribed and may be rightly when the market value is towards variable element on which the market value has to be assessed. In the present case there were two reports with regard to the market value one by approved Government valuer and other by non -approved valuer. In my opinion authorities have committed no error much less error on the face of record so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if he has accepted the report of the Government approved valuer. It is settled that if two views are possible and the authority has taken one view, the same cannot be said to be erroneous so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THERE is yet another reason for not interfering with the orders impugned in the present writ petition that the proceedings started on the application dated 30 -9 -1985 and the rent enhanced would be payable w.e.f. the date of the application i.e. 30 -9 -1985. Section 21 (8) confers on the landlord a right to apply after every five years for enhancement of the rent under the said provision.;