- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of the appellate authority dated 20-9-1999 whereby the appeal filed by Ram Kishore Varsaiya-landlord has been allowed partly. The reference to the parties in this order has been taken from. Writ Petition No. 54086 of 1999 for the purpose of convenience.
(2.) BRIEFLY, stated the facts, are that Ram Kishore Varsaiya respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the premises in question of which the State Bank of India the petitioner, is the tenant. The premises was let out to the petitioner in the year 1980 at monthly rent of Rs. 975. The landlord sub mitted an application under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) before' the Prescribed Authority on 15- 5-1992 for enhancement of rent from Rs. 975 per month to Rs. 7500 per month with the allegations that according to the market value of the properly in question, the rent should be enhanced. The petitioner submitted objection and denied that the valuation of the property as sug gested by the landlord. The landlord sub mitted report of the Valuer Sri P. O. Agarwal. The petitioner tenant also submitted certain papers. The Prescribed Authority held that the rent should be enhanced to Rs. 2000 per month and if the landlord makes necessary arrangement for water etc. then further a sum of Rs. 500 per month shall be payable by the petitioner. The landlord-respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appellate authority allowed the appeal taking the valuation of the construc tions at Rs. 5. 51 lacs and determined the rate of rent of Rs. 4600 per month. This order has been challenged by the tenant-Slate Bank of India in Writ Petition No. 54086 of 1999 and the landlord has also challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 54428 of 1999. I have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appel late authority while considering the report of the Valuer made an observation that the learned counsel for the parties had given implied consent. The following observation was made: "with the implied consent of the learned counsel for the parties the valuation after depreciation of the construction costs of the building as assessable at Rs. 5. 51 lacs. "
(3.) THE appellate authority has not slated as to whether the counsel had any authority to give consent. Secondly, it has not been disclosed what it meant by im plied consent. Thirdly, the appellate authority took a view that as the respondent No. 1 has not obtained any valuation report, the report submitted by the landlord respon dent appears to be correct. It was the duly of the appellate authority to examine the report of the valuer even though the tenant petitioner had not filed any report of its own. It has to examine as to whether the market value of the land assessed by the Valuer was based on any material evidence, the costs of constructions had been fixed on a certain principle and whether there was any depreciation of the value of the property taking into account the age of the building and other relevant factors.;