- (1.) There are two cross petitions; one filed by Sri Nishank Rastogi and the other by Shobhit Mohan Shukla. Both were heard at great length. Useful assistance was provided by the Law Trainee of this Court Km. Twishi Srivastava.
(2.) Both the writ petition No.74 (R/C)/2008 (Gyan Chand Jain Vs. A.D.J. XIII, Lucknow and others) and writ petition No.10 (R/C)/2008 (U.P. Export Corporation Limited Vs. A.D.J. XIII, Lucknow and others) have been filed assailing the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by A.C.M. Ist Lucknow the trial court and order dated 7.9.2007 passed by A.D.J. XIII, Lucknow, the Appellate Court.
(3.) Facts as stated by both the parties are that petitioner of writ petition No.74 (R/C)/2008 Gyan Chand Jain is the landlord of a building bearing House No.31/29, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow and it is well within the ambit of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Opposite party No.3 i.e. U.P. Export Corporation Limited is a tenant of the ground floor of said premises measuring about 2320.24 sq. feet from where it runs its show-room as Gangotri. U.P. Export Corporation Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956. With effect from 15.12.1971 the premise in question has been under the tenancy of U.P. Export Corporation Limited which is State Government Undertaking and it used to pay rent of Rs.1725/- per month. Provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 put a rider and embargo upon the landlord that the landlord of the premise let out to public sector corporation can not bring forth a suit for release under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 inspite of his pressing and bonafide needs. But with a view to compensate the landlords in a most equitable manner, the legislature had introduced Section 21 (8) under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 by virtue of which the landlord of premise under the Tenancy of a Public Sector Corporation can prefer an application for enhancement of month rent equivalent to 1/12th of ten percent of the market value of the tenement. Petitioner Gyan Chandra Jain on 19.11.2002 moved an application under Section 21-A of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for enhancement of monthly rent of premise in question before opposite party No.2 I..e Ist Additional City Magistrate-Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow which was registered as Case No.91-ACL Ist of 2002 (new number 33/2007) (Gyan Chandra Jain Vs. U.P. Export Corporation Limited) annexed as annexure No.3. In this application the petitioner submitted a report of one registered valuer namely, Sri J. N. Dubey and opposite party submitted report of one registered valuer Er. K. K. Agarwal. Opposite party No.2 in its findings stated that since there is great inconsistency between these two evaluer submitted by both the parties, it has proceeded to determine the rent allegedly on the basis of standard rate fixed by the Collector, Lucknow. While determining the rent opposite party No.2 did not add area of appurtenant arcade and also did not add the cost of land over which the super structure of premise in question stands. Opposite party No.2 fixed Rs.43,584/- as monthly rent of premise in question, annexed as Annexure No.3.;