Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) BEING of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Sh. Anant Ram Katiyar v. Prescribed Authority, 1976 (2) ALR 585 requires reconsideration, a learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision to a Division Bench: Whether the report of the valuer in the instant case was admissible in evidence notwithstanding the fact that the valuer had not filed his own affidavit proving his report?
(2.) THE proceedings in the present case were for determination of rent Under Section 21(8) of the Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972. The landlord who initiated these proceedings filed an affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit the landlord stated: That the report of J.P. Varshney, Government valuer which bears the signatures of Sri. J.P. Varshney who had signed it before the deponent is being filed. The report was annexed to the affidavit. According to the report the market value of the accommodation was Rs. 5,98,500/ -. The tenant, who is the Petitioner in the writ petition, contested the proceedings. According to him the house in question was over hundred years old and the rent of Rs. 475/ - per month which was being paid was proper. The Prescribed Authority held that the market value of the property was Rs. 4,00,000/ -. One -twelfth of its 10 percent came to Rs. 3,333.33p. This was the rent payable per month from October 1, 1976.
(3.) THE landlord as well as the tenant went up in appeal. The learned District Judge held that the valuer's report was well founded and acceptable. On its basis the market value of the accommodation was held to be Rs. 5,98, 500/ -. Consequently the monthly rent payable was fixed at Rs. 4,987.91 p. Both the appeals were disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved, the tenant has filed the present writ petition.;