S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Building in dispute ad-measuring about 2900 square yard and containing 32 rooms was in tenancy occupation of State of U.P. respondent No. 1 in which Government Training School Sheo Kuti, Allahabad respondent No. 2 was established. Landlord petitioners filed an application before R.C. and E.O. Allahabad under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of rent from Rs. 285/- per month to Rs. 23453.40/- per month. Landlords filed Valuer's report giving the valuation of land and building as Rs. 2814409/- and prayed that 1/120 of the total valuation be fixed as monthly rent as per formula provided under Section 21 (8) of the Act. R.C. and E.O. accepted the case of the landlord in toto and by order dated 22.2.1993, enhanced the rent to Rs. 23453.40/- with effect from March 1991. against the said judgment and order respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed appeal being Rent Control Appeal No. 97 of 1993. Vllth Additional District Judge, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 29.4.1998, allowed the appeal, set-aside the order of the R.C. and E.O. completely and rejected the application under Section 21 (8) of the Act, hence this writ petition by the landlords.
(2.) One of the points taken by the appellate Court for allowing the appeal was that application for enhancement of rent was not maintainable as no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. had been given before filing the said application. This view is utterly erroneous in law. Prior notice of two months is necessary only before filing suit under Section 80 C.P.C. No such notice is required before instituting any proceedings except suit. Before filing application for enhancement of rent under Section 21 (8) of the Act. notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is not at all required as the said application is not suit.
(3.) Lower Appellate Court also held that report of R.C. Agarwal valuer filed on behalf of landlord was not admissible in evidence as in the report filed before R.C. and E.O. words 'true copy' were mentioned. This point is also not tenable, as the valuer Sri R.C. Agarwal had also filed his affidavit reiterating the contents of the report. The second point for rejecting the report taken by the appellate Court is that Sri R.C. Agarwal was not a registered valuer. This point is also not tenable, as in the report as well as in Para 1 of the affidavit of R.C. Agarwal, it was stated that he had retired from the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer, U.P.S.E.B. and he was also a registered valuer for Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Gift Tax. The third point taken by the appellate Court for rejecting the report is that no basis for determining the valuation of land and building was given by the valuer.;