Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner State Bank of India challenges an order dated 20.8.1994 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur on an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the said appeal has been allowed and the monthly rent of the building in question has been determined at Rs. 17,760 w.e.f. 1.9.1988 as against Rs. 9,872.50 paise per month determined by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent. The petitioner bank is occupying a building situate at Saharanpur as a tenant of the contesting respondents. The monthly rent was Rs. 9,875.50 paise per month as agreed between the parties. The landlord moved an application for enhancement of rent under the proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act claiming that the monthly rent as per market value should be Rs. 48,000 per month. After perusing the evidence led by the parties in the form of valuation reports and affidavits the Rent Control and Eviction Officer estimated the market value of the land at Rs. 8,82,609 and the value of the constructions at Rs. 6,00,000. He, therefore, determined the monthly rent at Rs. 12,355 per month being equal to 1/12th of 10 percent of the market value of the building. The petitioner bank did not challenge the order but the landlords respondents preferred an appeal to the District judge. The District Judge accepted the value of the land as estimated by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to be correct but so far as value of the constructions was concerned he estimated the same at Rs. 12,48,600 as against Rs. 6,00,000 adopted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This was done on the basis of a valuation report filed by the bank itself and annexed to its written statement alongwith the counter -affidavit. A copy of that report has been placed by the petitioner at page 88 of the paper book.
(3.) THE first contention raised by Shri Rakesh Bahadur was that the market value of the building was not mentioned in the application moved by the landlords and, therefore, no evidence to that effect could have been adduced. A copy of the application filed by the landlords is Annexure -2 to the writ petition. While it is true that the market value has not been specifically stated as such but since the landlord claimed that the monthly rent should be determined at Rs. 48,000 per month in accordance with the market value of the land under Section 21(8) of the Act, it was indirectly pleaded that the market value of the building was a figure the 1/12th of 10 percent of which was Rs. 48,000. Further, an application under the aforesaid proviso to Section 21(8) is not to be construed like a plaint or a written statement in a civil suit. No form of an application is prescribed nor are there any provisions regarding verification. This contention, therefore, that the petition was defective cannot prevail.;