M.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is Waqf and is covered within the meaning of Section 3(s) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 9-A of the Act. The present writ petition is confined to the question of enhancement of rent against respondent No. 2 Mahadeo Prasad only. Section 9-A of the Act provides : "9-A. Revision of rent of commercial buildings let out by public religious institutions. - (1) Where any building belonging to a public charitable or public religious institution has been let out to a tenant for the purposes of a shop or commercial establishment, then notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, or in any contract or lease, the landlord of such building may apply to the District Magistrate for revision of the monthly rent payable therefor, and such rent shall be revised to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per centum of the market value of the building under tenancy : Provided that the rent revised under this sub-section shall not exceed double the rent payable on the date of the application by the landlord under this sub-section. (2) The rent revised under sub-section (1) shall be payable by the tenant from the commencement of the month of tenancy next following the date of the application. (3) Where the rent of any building had been revised in accordance with sub-section (1), then the landlord shall not be entitled to move a fresh application under the said sub-section within a period of five years from the date of the final order. Explanation. - In this section, the expression "shop" and "commercial establishment" shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Uttar Pradesh Dookan aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962, as amended from time to time." A reading of this section nowhere indicates that before the provisions of the said section are attracted the landlord must lead evidence and prove that the entire rent was being used for the benefit of the trust.
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected the application only on the ground that, there is no evidence led by the petitioner that the entire income derived from the rent of the shop in question is wholly utilised for the religious purposes of the Waqf though it has been held by him that the building in question is a Waqf property.;