Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition. It arises out of pro ceedings under section 21 (8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioners who are the owners and landlords of Kothi situate at Kishanpur, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh bearing Municipal No. 2/578, filed an application for enhancement of rent in respect of the tenanted accommodation in possession of the Regional Transport Officer, Aligarh, before the prescribed authority. In support of their plea for enhancement of rent, the petitioners filed a valuer's report dated 13th October, 1994. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The prescribed authority by the order dated 28th February, 2006 allowed the said application in part and enhanced the monthly rent from Rs. 1490 to Rs. 23750/-. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, both the petitioners as well as the Regional Transport Authority preferred appeals under section 22 of the Act. These appeals came up for consideration before the Court below. The Court below by the impugned order allowed both the appeals and restored back the matter to the prescribed authority with the direction that the parties may lead evidence with regard to the market value of the land beneath the build ing in question.
(2.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition is at the instance of the landlord. Heard Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Akshaiber Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In spite of time granted to the learned Standing Counsel, no counter- affidavit has been filed in the writ petition. Since only a limited question is involved, and there being no factual controversy it was considered proper to dispose of the writ petition. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the power of the Appellate Court under section 22 of the Act is co-extensive with that of the prescribed authority. Evidence in these proceedings are led on affidavits. The submission is that instead of remanding the matter to the pre scribed authority, the Appellate Court should have taken the additional evi dence. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment.
(3.) I have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would show that there were only two issues before it. The first issue was as to whether the value of the land under the build ing is to be included for the purposes of fixation of the rent as provided for under section 21 (8) of the Act. The contention of the tenant was that such land is li able to be excluded. However, the said contention did not find favour with the appellate authority and it was decided in favour of the landlord. The said point has attained finality as it has not been challenged any further by the re spondent tenant. The second point was with regard to the market value of the land beneath the building. The Court below is of the opinion that there is no adequate evidence in this regard on record. The present application for en hancement of rent was filed on 7.2.1994. The circle rate of the area which has been filed is of 15th April, 1994. It relates to the period subsequent to the filing of the application.;