- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 22-3-1993 passed by respondent No. 2 al lowing the appeal and fixing the rent of the disputed premises at Rs. 7634. 78.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were let out the premises in dispute at monthly rent of Rs. 1,450/- by respondent No. 1. He filed an application under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) for enhancement of the rent from Rs. 1,450/- to Rs. 9833. 33 on the basis of the market value then existing. THE Prescribed Authority rejected the ap plication on 17-1-1991. Respondent No. 1 filed appeal. THE appellate authority has allowed the appeal and passed the im pugned order enhancing the rent to Rs. 7634. 78 per month. I have heard Sri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. l. The sole question is whether the rent has been rightly enhanced by the respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. Sub- secjtion (8) of Section 21 of the Act provides that in case a building is let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution, the District Magistrate may, on the ap plication of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefore to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application. The rent was to be deter mined on the basis of the market value of the building under tenancy. For fixing the market value of a building, the cost of the construction of the building and the market value of the land was to be taken into account. The landlord had produced the evidence of the report of an architect and also the circle rate of the area where the premises in dispute was situate. The circle rate was Rs. 500/- sq. yd. The copy of the report has been annexed as Annexure 'ca-5' to the counter-affidavit. This report is supported with an affidavit of the architect. The circle rate of the area is shown at Rs.
(3.) OO/- per sq. yd. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the valuation of the land fixed on the basis of the circle rate is incorrect. It may be noted that the petitioners did not adduce any other evidence to show as regards the rate of the land of the area concerned. They had not filed any exemplar. In case there is no other evidence to show by any document regarding the rate of the land, the Court will be justified in relying upon the circle rate, which has been fixed by the District Magistrate. The valuation of the land was, accordingly, correctly made. Secondly the architect has assessed at Rs. 500/- per sq. yrd. I do not find any legal infirmity in it. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ar chitect has taken the cost of the construc tion at Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. of the ground floor and Rs. 110/- per sq. ft. of the first floor. There is nothing to show that the architect had (applied the principle of depreciation. The cost of the construction at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. was not shown to have been made when the build ing was constructed. The building is al leged to have been constructed about 18 years ago. The post of the construction at that time was different. I intended to remand the case on this point but the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 sub mitted that the Court can itself fix the amount, instead of remanding the matter, it will take longer time. Considering the nature of the construction and the period of the construction, the rent is enhanced from Rs. 1,450/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month.;