Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions arise out of proceedings under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter described as the "Act") initiated by landlord -respondent No. 1 M/s. Divine Builders against the tenant -petitioners i.e. State of U.P. and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut for enhancement of rent. Respondent No. 1 purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 26.7.1990. Petitioners were tenant in the said property since before its purchase by respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month rent. After purchasing the property on 26.7.1990 respondent No. 1 filed application under section 21(8) of the Act for enhancement of the rent on 12.11.1990. In the release application it was prayed that the rent be enhance to Rs. 48,000/ - and odd per month. The application was registered as Case No. 79 on the file of District Magistrate, Meerut. District Magistrate, Meerut through judgment and order dated 28.2.1992 held that the consideration, for which the respondent No. 1 itself had purchased the property about 3 -4 months before was the best exemplar to determine the market value of the property in dispute. Taking the said consideration, as the market value of the property in dispute, District Magistrate enhanced the rent to Rs. 10,250/ - per month. Respondent No. 1 had purchased the property for Rs. 12,30,000/ -. Dividing the said figure by 120, the resultant figure of Rs. 10,250/ - was arrived at, as per the formula provided under section 21(8) of the Act. Against the said judgment and order two appeals were filed - -one by the landlord being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1992 and the other by State of U.P., the tenant, being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1992. Tenant was aggrieved that the enhancement of rent was highly excessive. The grievance of the landlord was that enhancement was inadequate and rent should have been enhanced to Rs. 48,000/ - and odd, as demanded by the landlord through his application under section 21(8) of the Act. VIII A.D.J. Meerut dismissed the appeal of the tenant and allowed the appeal of the landlord and enhanced the rent to Rs. 48,244.16 paise. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court these two writ petitions have been filed, by tenant/State.
(2.) AS respondent No. 1 landlord itself had purchased the property for Rs. 12,30,000/ - hence by no stretch of imagination the valuation of the property could be held to be more than that. The best evidence to determine the market value is the purchase price of the disputed property immediately before the making of the application for enhancement. Sale consideration shown in the sale deeds, in normal course, is to be taken the market value of the property in dispute. Accordingly, I find that the Appellate Court was not at all justified to determine the market value of the property in dispute to be more than Rs. 12,30,000/ -. However, I also, do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by the District Magistrate, determining the market value of the property in dispute on the basis of the sale deed through which respondent No. 1 purchased the property 3 -4 months before filing of the application. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed in part Judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court in landlord's appeal i.e. Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1992 is set aside and judgment and order passed in tenant's appeal i.e. Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1992 is affirmed, with the result that the judgment and order passed by the District Magistrate is fully approved. Under interim order dated 7.9.1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 32426 of 1992, tenant -petitioner was required to pay the rent at the rate determined by the District Magistrate. Accordingly to the learned Counsel for the petitioner rent was paid at the said rate. Thereafter, tenant petitioner vacated the building on 21.5.1993. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner -tenant shall be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 10,250/ - with effect from 1.12.1991 till 21.5.1993. If under interim order the entire amount has been paid, then the matter ends. However, if any amount remains due, the same shall be paid by the petitioner to the landlord, respondent No. 1, within six months from today.;