Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions arise out of common order dated 24.12.1992, passed by the Prescribed Authority determining the rate of rent under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 15.10.1993, passed by the Appellate Authority, against the said order. The writ petition No. 16647 of 1994 shall be treated as leading writ petition and reference to the petitioner and respondents hereinafter shall be made accordingly.
(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that Smt. Uma Rani - -respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21(8) of the Act for enhancement of the rent against the petitioner on the allegation that a portion of premises No. 6 Tyagi Road, Dehradun, consisting of main building, servant quarters, Garrage, open land and lawn etc. was let out to petitioner by lease deed dated 5th July, 1985 on monthly rent of Rs. 2,800/ - for a period of five years commencing from 22nd August, 1984. The applicant is entitled to enhancement of monthly rent at a sum equivalent to one twelfth (1/12) of the ten percent of the market value of the property in question under Section 21(8) of the Act. According to the landlady the market value of the property in question is valued at Rs. 13,85,900/ -. The petitioner was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the said application. The petitioner filed objection and denied that the market value of the property in question is Rs. 13,85,900/ -. According to the petitioner the value of the property in question is Rs. 3,50,000/ -. Parties led evidence in the case. The prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that market value of the property is Rs. 7,63,395.00 and accordingly fixed the rate of rent at Rs. 6,360/ - per month.
(3.) PETITIONER filed Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1993 and respondent No. 3 filed Rent Appeal No. 166 of 1993. Both the Appeals were consolidated by respondent No. 1 and both the appeals were dismissed by the common order dated 15.10.1993. Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition No. 16647 of 1994 and respondent No. 3 has filed writ petition No. 38745 of 1994 against the aforesaid order.;