- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This petition has been filed by the tenant against order dated 16-5-2002 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar, in proceedings under Section 29-A (5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Satya Prakash (respondent 2) is the owner of the plot measuring 210. 97 Sq. Meter situated in the town of Shamli, Tehsil, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar (in short referred as the land in dispute ). By means of agreement dated 12-6-1970, the land in dispute was let out to Sri Bhagwan Singh, father of the petitioners, at annual rent of Rs. 240. It is alleged that the building was raised by the tenant in the year 1994 and the landlord by an application under Section 29-A (5) of the Act sought enhancement of the rent of the land in dispute. According to landlord the market value of the land in dispute was assessed as Rs. 4,21,947 and, therefore, as per the provisions contained in sub- section 5 of Section 29-A of the Act, monthly rent should be determined at Rs. 3516/20p. per month. The application was contested by petitioners It was alleged in paragraph 16 of the written statement that no constructions were raised by the tenant from his own funds and expense of construction had been incurred by the landlord himself. The tenant further denied raising any construction in 1994. A further contention was raised that construction having been raised in the year 1994 provisions of the Act did not apply. In support of his case the landlord filed a valuation report of Singhal Associates. The report was also supported by an affidavit of Sri S. P. Singhal, who was the Consulting Engineer of the said Associates. On behalf of the tenant petitioner a report was filed by Engineer Virendra Singh of Baliyan Associates. This report is in respect of age of construction only and did not relate to the valuation of the land in dispute. The Rent Control Eviction Officer upon consideration of the valuation report came to the conclusion that the valuation of the land, as determined by the valuer of the landlord at the rate of Rs. 2000/-per Sq. Meter was fair and reasonable market value. Accordingly vide order dated 16-5-2002, Respondent No. 1 allowed the application of the landlord for enhancing of the rent of the land in dispute and fixed the same as Rs. 3516. 20p. per month. Aggrieved by the said order the present petition has been filed. I have heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. M. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is being finally disposed of.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has raised 3 questions in this petition. Firstly, the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply to the present land in dispute, on the ground that the constructions have been raised in the year 1994 as alleged by the landlord and ten years period had not expired. Secondly that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not recorded any finding that the constructions were raised by the tenant petitioners and therefore, Section 29 (A) of the Act had no application and thirdly that the valuation report is not based upon any document and cannot be relied upon. Sri M. M. D. Agarwal learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 stated that the provisions of the Act were applicable, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had recorded findings regarding the constructions having been raised by the petitioners the valuation has been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. According to him the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not tenable in law.;