Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected writ petitions raising common questions of law and facts and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners had also filed application under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on the grounds, inter alia, that provisions of section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the property in dispute; that the only remedy lies under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and that the rent may be enhanced.
(2.) THE petitioners are landlords of the property in dispute. They filed release applications registered as P.A. Case No. 21 of 1984 under section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972') which were allowed and the respondents vacated the property in dispute on 14.3.1992. In Writ Petition No. 46039 of 2003, the property in dispute is under the tenancy of Sales Tax Department of the State of U.P. whereas in the Writ Petition No. 46040 of 2003, the property in dispute is under the tenancy of Education Department of the State of U.P. The Trial Court enhanced the rent of the properties in dispute taking into consideration the dilapidated conditions of the buildings and the value of the land. The appeal preferred by the petitioners were allowed but they are aggrieved by the appellate orders, inter alia, that the Appellate Court committed a manifest error of law in not considering the scope of enquiry in an application under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(3.) THE contention of Counsel for the petitioners is that the lower Appellate Court was required to modify the order of the Trial Court taking into account the cost of building for determining its market value in view of definition of 'building' contained in section 3(i) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. He urged that the observation of the lower Appellate Court with regard to maintainability of application under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is unjustified and unwarranted as application under section 21(8) of the aforesaid Act was maintainable. He challenged the observation of the lower Appellate Court on the question of landlord's offering accommodation in new building to the tenant in place of old building and urged that there was no relevance of this fact for deciding application under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.;