Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) THERE is a middle aged lady who owns a house at New Jhusi, Allahabad, which she has let to the State of Uttar Pradesh and under occupation of an allied office and use of the Chief Medical Officer. The rent for the premises used by the Chief Medical Officer was Rs. 75/- per month. The lady was not satisfied with the rent which was paid to her and had desired a revision.
(2.) THE lady moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad by an application, in effect, under sub-clause (8) of Section 21, with a prayer that the rent of the accommodation be revised in accordance with law, and specifically sought revision of rent from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 1277.66 in accordance with the report of the qualified Valuer on the basis of the formula prescribed in the aforesaid section. This was registered as case no. 414 of 1981. THE Chief Medical Officer did not file any objections despite service of notice on behalf of the lady. THE claim of the lady, as set in her application remained uncontroverted. However, unconnected with the aspect that the Chief Medical Officer did not file any objections, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the lady seeking revision of rent on the ground that the Valuer's report which she had filed upon which revision of rent had been desired had not been supported by an affidavit, and the exemplars of the rent charged by owners, in like circumstances, had not been brought on record. THE application of the lady was rejected on 23 October 1981. The lady filed an appeal before the District Judge, this was rent appeal no. 810 of 1981 : Premlata Agarwal v. State of U. P. The appeal remained pending before the District Judge for about a little over three years. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears the Chief Medical Officer was seeking an out of court settlement. The record shows that the lady was being persuaded to accept a sum of Rs. 300/- per month and withdraw the case pending in appeal before the District Judge. The lady was not totally agreeable to the idea. This trend is discernible from the record upon a perusal of inter-departmental communication between the Deputy Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad dated 14 January 1982 and letter dated 18 April 1983 written by the lady to the Chief Medical Officer. From these two letters it is clear that the Chief Medical Officer was agreeable in principle that the rent ought to be increased but could not give an amount over and above Rs. 300/- per month. The Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad was intimated in the letter written by the lady, dated 18 April 1983 ; " I have contacted your office and am apprised that enhancement of rent of the premises is only possible from Rs. 75/-per month to Rs. 300/- per month. I agree with your proposal for enhancement of the rent without prejudice to my right. " The Court is setting this aspect on record as on behalf of the State it was being suggested that the enhancement upto Rs. 300/- was at the lady's initiative. This was not so and in so far as the State is concerned while it assured the lady that she may have enhancement upto Rs. 300/- per month, sanction was obtained for 250/- per month. This is clear from the communication between the Chief Medical Officer Allahabad, addressed to the Deputy Chief Medical Officer (IV) Allahabad dated 9 April 1984. Between the promise and the assurance which was given to the lady and the sanction which was being obtained, more than two years had elapsed. The promise was for Rs. 300/- per month and the sanction obtained was for Rs. 250/-. This was fait accompli after having assured the lady that she may have Rs. 300/- per month, to which she agreed reluctantly ; she was being offered Rs. 250/- per month. Thus, the lady got an occasion not to withdraw her case and so pursued her appeal before the Illrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad. The Illrd Additional District Judge disagreed with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in rejecting the application under Section 21 (8) of the Act aforesaid. The learned Additional District Judge aforesaid accepted the Valuer's report made in accordance with Section 21 (8) of the Act, aforesaid by which the rent in accordance with the formula prescribed stood at Rs. 1277.66. It may also be mentioned, that the learned Additional District Judge has given a finding that the report of the Valuer remained unrebutted.
(3.) THE only ground upon which the State of U. P. has impugned the order of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, in appeal is that the Valuer's report was not supported by an affidavit and thus it could not be accepted by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge. To support this proposition learned Standing Counsel has cited a decision of this Court of a Division Bench, reported in 1983 U. P. Rent Control Cases 648. In answer to the argument of the learned Standing Counsel it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is correct that the Valuer's report had not been supported by an affidavit and the State of U. P. is hardly in a position to take such an argument before this Court as it had two occasions to object to this report but it did not do so. In a reference to this, learned counsel for the respondent is not incorrect. Before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the State of U. P. had knowledge of the fact that an application for enhancement of rent had been moved under sub-clause (8) of Section 21 but despite several dates being fixed, it chose not to file objections. The IIIrd Additional District Judge on this aspect, records the submission of the landlady that the matter was adjourned before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer specifically for the purpose of receiving objections on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer and recording bis evidence. The Chief Medical Officer neither brought his objections on record nor produced any evidence to dislodge the claim made by the landlady. This aspect had not been denied by the State of U. P. Thus the only technicality upon which the State of U. P. relies upon is the submission that the Valuer's report not having been supported by an affidavit, ought to be rejected.;