- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners moved an application under section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of the rent on the basis that market value of building under tenancy of respondent No. 3 is Rs. 319000/ -. THE respondent No. 3 filed his objection denying the enhancement of rent for the building under his tenancy. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Shahjahanpur accepted the report of Engineer of the contesting respondent vide order dated 5. 6. 2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8. 8. 2003 the petitioners pre ferred appeal as well as the contesting respondent also preferred appeal which too were dismissed vide order dated 8. 8. 2003, hence this writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has en hanced the rent of the disputed accommodation to Rs. 1042/- per month whereas rent according to valuation of the building should be Rs. 2000/- per month.
(3.) ACCORDING to the explanation of sections 3 (i) building includes the land also over which building is constructed. Admittedly the Court below has only valued the building as assessed by the P. W. D. Engineer on the valuation report filed by the respondents. The value of the building ought to have also been in cluded while calculating the rent, hence I am of the considered opinion that the rent as per proviso to section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and according to the petitioners if the value of the land is increased, the rent would be Rs. 2650/- per month. This view is also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and others v. VIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1991 (18) ALR 540 (SC ). I am also supported with my view to the aforesaid case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Admit.;