- (1.) SINCE the dispute involved in both the writ petitions relates to the order of enhancement of rent and its recovery from the petitioners, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the writ peti tions are being decided by this common order.
(2.) WRIT Petition No. 2823 of 2001 (M/s) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned orders dated 23-2-2000 passed by the Additional Dis trict Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1999 and or der dated 13-10-1999 passed by the Pre scribed Authority / Sub Divisional Of ficer, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Case No. 51/4 of 1990-91. By the or der dated 13-10-1999, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application moved by the landlord under Section 21 (8) of the U. P Urban Buildings (Regu lation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and fixed the rent of the disputed building @ Rs. 7. 000/- per month. The tenant-opposite party was directed to pay the rent at the said rate to the applicant from the date of application. By the judgment and or der dated 23-2-2000, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Addi tional District Judge. Writ Petition No. 113 of 2003 (M/ B) has been preferred by the petitioner State Bank of India against the order dated 23-11 -2002 whereby the Pre scribed Authority has certified that a sum of Rs. 6,62,000/- is due against the petitioner-Bank towards the rent en hanced under Section 21 (8) of the Act, on which the Collector Udham Singh Nagar has passed order dated 2-12-2002 to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. Relevant facts of the case shall be narrated at appropriate place in this judgment after dealing with the matter of main writ petition. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition (WPMS No. 2823 of 2001) in brief are that the State Bank of India, Kichha was tenant of a por tion of the building belonging to the re spondent no. 1 Kundan Singh on the basis of agreement and the rent was agreed at Rs. 1200/- per month from 28-11 - 1975. The carpet area of the build ing was enhanced to 5000 sq. ft. at the request of the petitioner- Bank. Subse quently, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month w. e. f. 23-4-1982 though the same should have been en hanced from 29-12-1980. The landlord-respondent moved an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 (8) of the Act alleging therein that the valu ation of the disputed building has been de termined by an authorized Architect to be Rs. 11. 58 lacs and as per provisions of the Act, the monthly rent of the building may be fixed at Rs. 9,650/- to which the land lord- respondent is entitled to get from the tenant-Bank.
(3.) THE application was contested by the petitioner-Bank and they admitted the respondent no. 1 to be landlord and owner of the building and also admit ted that the tenancy at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month from 28-11-1975. THEy have denied rest of the pleas. It has been alleged that the rent was enhanced @ Rs. 2000/- per month w. e. f. 23-4-1982 because the landlord has assured that he would increase the area of the building and would carry out the requi site repairs in the buildings, but even af ter assurance nothing was done by the landlord and the petitioners are paying the rent at the enhanced rate. It was also alleged that the landlord is not entitled to get enhanced rent from 29-12-1980. THE application of the landlord on the basis of valuation of the building on the market rate is wrong and not tenable. In support of the application, the landlord has filed valuation report of the architect dated 16-8-1980 along with the affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Y. M. Saxena and copy of the sale dated 30-3-1991 executed by Sudesh Kumar in favour of Radha Devi, while the oppo site party petitioner filed valuation report of the building prepared by O. K. Hureti as well as some other documents and affidavits.;