- (1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by State of Uttar Pradesh challenging orders dated 27th February, 1992 by which rent of the accommodation in dispute has been fixed as Rs. 5000/p. m. under Sec. 21(8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1992, hereinafter referred to as 'Act', payable with effect from 1st May, 1988. There is delay of 233 days in filing these writ petitions. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the delay has been explained in paragraph No. 18 of the writ petition. I have considered the explanation. In my opinion, cause shown is sufficient and delay is condoned.
(2.) The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that the accommodation in dispute was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/- on 18th November, 1968 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 700/- p.m. w.e.f. 12th September, 1980. The landlord respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21 (8) of the Act on 18th April, 1988 and prayed for enhancing the rent of accommodation in dispute as provided under the aforesaid Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 4th April, 1991 enhanced the rent to Rs. 3767/- p.m. Aggrieved by his order two appeals were filed, one appeal was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and another appeal was filed by respondent No. I. The appeal of the petitioners has been dismissed by appellate authority and that of respondent No. I has been allowed and the rent has been further enhanced to Rs. 5000/- p.m. The aforesaid orders of the Rent Control authorities have been challenged by means of these two writ pclilions undcr Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) I have heard learned Standing Counsel. It has been submitted that there was no evidence for the market value before the aforesaid authorities and the orders are based on no evidence. A perusal of the orders shows that the respondent No. 1 filed a notification dated 31 st January, 1988 issued by Additional Collector (Finance) of that area prescribing the rate for the land in case of transfers in Mohalla Rajendra Nagar where the land in dispute is situated (the document has been mentioned as the list of circle rates). Actually these prices are required to be fixed and supplied by the Collector biennially for purposes of realisation of the stamp duty under Rule 340 of U.P. Stamp Rules'1942 which is being reproduced below: "340. (a) Every Collector shall biennially supply to the District Registrar and such other officers as the State Government may specify, a copy of the statement showing classification of soil, circle rate and the average price of land appertaining to each such classification situate in every pargana, corporation or local body of his district. (b)The District Registrar shall supply copies of the statement mentioned in the preceding para to the Sub-Registrars undcr his control and shall also forward a copy of the same to the Inspector-General of Registration, Uttar Pradesh. (c) Every Registering Officer snail cause a copy of the above statement to be affixed outside the registration office.";