- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Controversy in the instant petition has its genesis in an applica tion instituted by the petitioner-landlord on 11-7-1988 u/s. 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short Act No. 13 of 1972) for a hike in the rent of the building under the tenancy from Rs. 2400 to Rs. 18,400 per month. Indubitably, the premises in question has been in occupation of the L. I. C. of India through its Regional Manager, Firozabad on a monthly rent of Rs. 2400 over and above the local charges with effect from 1-7-1978.
(2.) THE market-value of the building (including land) according to the landlord, had run up to be Rs. 22,07,720 as on 'the date of the application' and it was on that basis that the rent was sought to be en hanced from Rs. 2400 to Rs. 18,397,70 per month Rs. 18,400 in round figure) being the amount equivalent to one- twelfth of the ten percent of the market-value of the build ing under tenancy in addition to the local charges and taxes. THE application was resisted by the respondent-tenant, inter alia, on the plea that the value of the building under tenancy in no way outweighed Rs. 3,45,000. Both the parties invoked aid of Ex pert reports on the market value of the building. According to the report of the registered valuar-R. P. Seth, filed on behalf of the petitioner, the market-value of the property was Rs. 22,07,720 whereas accord ing to Sri Om Mathur's report filed on be half of the tenant, it did not exceed Rs. 3,45,000. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer/additional District Magistrate (Finance) vide its order dated 19-4-1995 was not reconciled to the report of the valuer produced on behalf of the petitioner and at the same time, partly agreeing with that of the valuer relied on by the tenant, reckoned the value of the building to be Rs. 8,75,566. The enhanced rent equivalent to one- twelfth of 10% of the said market-value, accordingly came to be reckoned as Rs. 7,246. 40 per month payable with effect from the date of the application as per order dated 19-4-1995. Both the parties preferred separate appeals against the said order only to be greeted with dismissal vide order dated 21- 10-1994 with the clarificatory rider that the enhanced rent would be payable not with effect from the date of the application as ordered by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, but from 1-8-1988 Le. the date of commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of application as com prehended by the first proviso to sub-sec tion (8) of S. 21 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Aggrieved by the order dated 19-4-1995 of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and the appellate order dated 21-10-1994, the landlord has come up to this Court by means of the instant petition seeking quash ing of the orders aforestated to the extent the relief for claimed enhancement of rent has been rejected and for a mandamus for correct fixation of the market value of the proper in dispute. The tenant has ac quiesced into the order passed by the appel late court thereby dismissing its appeal.
(3.) SRI N. K. Chaturvedi, learned coun sel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the land appurtenant to the building by reason of its abutting at the Bye-pass road, Firozabad ought to have been valued @ Rs. 1800 per sq. meter and the Authorities have fallen in error in determining the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per sq. meter which was the Prescribed circle rate for the land situated at Agra Gate and not the rate for land abutting at the Bye-pass road. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also sub mitted that the value of the construction given by the valuer produced on behalf of the petitioner, has been disapproved by the authorities without vetting intrinsic merit and value. SRI R. P. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urging that the value of the land has been rightly pegged at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per sq. meter. The value of the structure, according to him, was over rated by the valuer produced on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, it has rightly not received the nod of acceptance of the authorities. A perusal of the impugned orders would be speak that it has been found as a fact that the property abuts at the Bye-pass road, Firozabad, though the appellate Authority has diverged in finding that the property was adjacent to the hospital situate in Mathura Nagar Colony which is at Agra gate, but that by itself did not constitute any ground to abnegate the petitioner's claim to get the value of the land determined at the rate of Rs. 1,800 per sq. meter i. e. at the rate of Rs. 1,800 per sq. meter Le. at the rate prescribed for the land situate at Bye-pass road nor was it a ground to determine the market value of the land on the basis of circle rate prevailing for land situate at Agra gate. On the finding recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge that the building was situated at Bye-pass road, he ought to have applied the circle rate prescribed for the land situate by Bye-pass road, Firozabad in order to determine the value of the land. 7 Further the authorities do not seem to have addressed the intrinsic values and merits of the two reports, one submitted by Om Mathur and the other by R. P. Seth-before setting store by one at the alter of the other. In my opinion, failure on the part of the authorities to advert themselves to the intrinsic values and comparative merits of the two reports for the purposes of accept ing the one in antagonism of the other is an error which permeates the decision-making-process and vitiates the finding on the market value of the "building" under tenancy which, as defined in Section 3 (i) of the Act, includes any land (including gar den) garrages and out-houses appurtenant to such building. Such a defect is charac teristic of one tantamounting to non- ap plication of mind to, and non-consideration of, material evidence on record and there fore, a case for intervention in writ jurisdic tion is made out. The matter, in my opinion, calls for being re-examined by the appellate authority. 8. No other point has been pressed into service. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition suc ceeds and is allowed in part. The appellate order dated 21-10-94 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal (Rent Control) No. 23 of 1993 is quashed. The appellate authority is directed to repone the said Appeal to its number and decide it afresh after proper self-direction to the relevant questions in the light of the observations made in this judgment within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. .;