- (1.) Heard Sri Satyendra Nath Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandan Sharma on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5. Under challenge in this petition is the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in proceedings under Section 21-A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the aforesaid order has determined the rent of the premises in dispute w.e.f. 1.12.1986 @10% per annum of the prevailing circle rate with the direction that henceforth as and when the circle rate is revised the rent would automatically stand enhanced accordingly.
(2.) The submission of Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application itself was not maintainable as the rent of the premises was admitted to be Rs. 2,500/- per month and as such the provisions of the Act were not applicable. Secondly, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not have fixed the rent without discussing the prevailing market value.
(3.) Sri Chandan Sharma to controvert the above argument has submitted that the rent of the premises at the time of filing of the above application was Rs. 100/- per month and as such the Act was applicable. Secondly, under Section 29-A(5) of the Act it is the prevailing market value which is material for fixation of rent and therefore the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not committed any error in directing for determining the annual rent at the market value of the property as per the prevailing circle rate.;