S. U. Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD, learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out of proceedings for enhancement of rent under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 initiated against the tenants, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Shahjahanpur and State of U. P., through Collector, Shahjahanpur. In the tenanted accommodation, a school is being run. Tenanted accommodation consists of one hall, two rooms, two verandahs and courtyards. Total area of the accommodation in dispute including open land is about 240 square metres (238 square metres exactly). The agreed rent was Rs. 285 per month. Petitioners landlords' application for enhancement of rent was registered as Case No. 1 of 1995, Smt. Ishtiyaq Bano Begum v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari and others on the file of R.C. and E.O./City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, through order dated 5.6.2002, enhanced the rent to Rs. 1,042 per month payable with effect from the date of decision. Against the said order landlady filed P.A. Appeal No. 23 of 2002. Tenants also filed appeal against the same order being P. A. Appeal No. 22 of 2002. A.D.J., Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur, through judgment and order dated 8.8.2003, dismissed the appeal of the tenant and allowed the appeal of the landlady in part. Appellate court approved the decision of R.C. and E.O. regarding extent of enhancement rate of rent, i.e., Rs. 1,042 per month. However, appellate court directed that the said rent should be payable w.e.f. 25.8.1995, the date on which application for enhancement of rent was filed and not w.e.f. date of order of R.C. and E.O. (5.6.2002) as was directed by R.C. and E.O. This writ petition has been filed by the heirs of the landlady. Tenant has not filed any writ petition against the said order. The valuer of the landlady had valued the cost of construction at Rs. 1,28,000. The valuer of the tenant had valued the constructions at Rs. 1,25,000.
(3.) THE main argument raised by learned counsel for the tenant petitioner is that the valuer of the tenant valued only the super structure/construction and did not include cost of the land in the total valuation of the tenanted property. Copy of report of tenant's valuer is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. THE valuer has applied the standard formula for determining the value of the structure depending upon age and expected life of the building, the material used in the construction and present rate of construction. THE formula is as follows : D = P (1 - rd/100)n Under Chapter-IX of P.W.D., B & R Branch, Uttar Pradesh Maintenance Manual, Part-II Buildings, it is provided under Chapter 9.02 as follows : "9.02. Permanent Buildings.-The buildings should be divided into four parts, viz. (i) walls, (ii) roof, (iii) floors, and (iv) doors and windows, and the cost of each part should first be worked out on the present day rates. The life of each of the four parts mentioned above, should then be ascertained with the help of Form-I, Annexure (B) to Chapter XIII of the Financial Handbook, Volume V, Part I (see Appendix 37) and the depreciated value calculated with the formula : D = P (1 - rd/100)n where (D) is the depreciated value, (P) is the cost at the present market rate, (rd) the fixed percentage of depreciation and (n) the number of years the buildings had been constructed. The values of (rd) may be assumed as noted below : Structures with 100 year life (rd) .. .. .. .. 1.0 75 .. .. .. .. 1.3 50 .. .. .. .. 2.0 25 .. .. .. .. 4.0 20 .. .. .. .. 5.0 The values arrived at will be exclusive of cost of land, water supply, electric and sanitary fittings, etc. and will apply to those buildings only which have been properly maintained. If the repairs had been neglected in the past and the present condition is bad or dilapidated suitable deduction should be made from the value as deducted above, for neglected repairs (not for ordinary repairs). The present value of land and water supply, sanitary and electric fittings, etc. should be added to the valuation of the building to arrive at total valuation of the property. It would be seen from the above that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the extent to which deduction should be made for neglected maintenance.";