Sudhir Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 15th March, 1989 passed by respondent no. 1. I have heard Sri Y. S. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Murlidhar, Senior Advocate, for respondent no. 3.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that a portion of the building situate at Haridwar was let out to Oriental Bank of Commerce, respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). THE petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (8) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE value of the property was to be determined in accordance with market value of the building under tenancy of respondent no. 3 as provided under sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act. For (he purpose of determining the market value the reports of the Engineers were submitted. THE Prescribed Authority by his order dated 14th August, 1987, determined the value of the accommodation under the tenancy of respondent no. 3 at Rs, 5,11,875/-. He held that respondent no. 3 is in occupation of 2275 sq feet and after taking into consideration the valuation of this portion, he fixed the rent at Rs. 2.50 per sq. feet. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioners filed Rent Control Appeal No 189 of 1987 and respondent no. 3 filed Rent Control Appeal No. 186 of 1987 before the District Judge Saharanpur. THE appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the appeal filed by respondent no. 3 was allowed. THE petitioner have filed writ petition against this order. The petitioner is a tenant of a portion of the building on the ground floor consisting of an area of 2275 sq. feet. The building is a double storied building and there is a basement. The landlord is carrying on his dry- cleaning business on the basement and residing on the first floor of the same building. The question is of determination of the market value of the portion in occupation of the Bank The market value has not been defined in the Act. It is now settled law that the market value means what the willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the land and the development activities which may be going on in the vicinity and the potentiality of the land, vide Mahabir Prasad Shantuka v. Collector, 1987 ALR 308. The market value of a property can be determined by producing exemplars of the similar property sold in a particular area or near relevant date as contemplated in any statute. Under Section 21 (8) of the Act the relevant date would be the date of submitting an application under the provision before the District Magistrate In case no relevant exemplar is available, the other methods may be adopted for determining the market value of the property in question,
(3.) WHERE no other data are available, two methods are adopted for determining the market value of a building- (i) The rent normally realised if let, or if not let, the expected rent and capitalising it by number of years' purchase of the- annual rent derived from the property ; and . (ii) By valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of one to the other. The first method cannot be adopted in the case where the rent of the building has to be enhanced on the basis of the market value. It is then the last method i. e. by ascertaining the value of the land and the cost of the construction on it. The last method has been taken as very weak method because some times it does not represent the real market value of the property. In a case where the building on the ground floor is used for commercial purpose and first floor for residential purpose and basement for different purpose each one has its own independent value. If a willing purchaser goes to purchase shops or commercial portion of the building he will pay a higher price and for residential portion on the first floor he will pay lesser price. The value of the basement will be differently assessed. In Ram Shekhar v. Chairman City Improvement Board, Mysore, AIR 1957 Mysore 57, it was held that the valuation of land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of one to the other does not furnish the reliable estimate of the property.;