N.N.Mithal - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking into the impugned orders, it is apparent that the lower appellate court has accepted the report of the petitioner's expert as regards the cost of land according to the circle rate provided by the petitioner before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. There is not much controversy as regards the cost of construction and the built up area. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that subsequently on 21-2-1989, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) by his order dated 2-3-1988 has fixed the circle rate of the area in question at the rate of Rs. 1135/- per sq. mtr. effective from 5-3-1988. The present application under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 was made on 5-9-1985. Obviously the enhanced rate which has now been fixed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) with effect from 5-3-1988 is subsequent to the said date. According to the proviso of Section 21 (8) the enhancement of rent has to be equivalent to one-twelfth of 10% of the market value of the building under tenancy. The enhanced rent is also payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application. In view of this, enhanced rate of rent will be payable by the respondent from October 1985. The market value of the property has rightly been determined under the impugned order as on 5-9-1985. The Tehsildar had earlier reported that circle rate was Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr. and that was the prevailing rate of rent of the area where the building is situate. In view of this, I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or other manifest error of law. The relevant aspects have been properly considered by the appellate court in fixing the rent at the rate of Rs. 3235.43 per month.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY the petition has no merit. It is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.;