JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition is directed against the order passed in proceedings for fixation of rent under the first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1272 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short 'Act'). 2. The Opposite Party No. 1 Roop Kishore Tandon is admittedly the owner of the building in question. This building had been let out in the year 1966 to a department of the U.P. Government at the monthly rent of Rs. 150. On the enhancement of the Act, rent was enhanced to Rs. 187.50 in 1972 under Section 5 of the Act. The Act was amended in the year 1976 and sub-section (8) was added to Section 21. This sub-section barred the landlord from claiming eviction in respect of a building let out to the State Government and certain other authorities. The first proviso to the sub-section however entitled the landlord to make an application to the District Magistrate for enhancement of the monthly rent. The District Magistrate could under this proviso enhance the monthly rent to a sum equivalent to 1/12th of 10 per cent, of the market value of the building under tenancy. This enhanced rent becomes payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application. Taking advantage of this provision the landlord-opposite-party made an application on 17th March, 1981 for enhancement of the monthly rent. In this application he asserted that the market value of the building in tenancy of a department of the State Government was Rs. 1,20,000. On this basis he claimed fixation of rent at Rs. 1,000 or at such figure as may be found proper. The District Magistrate obtained a report from valuer in respect of the building in question, The valuer in his report dated 10th July, 1984 reported the value of the building as Rs. 1,69,600 and on this valuation rent was fixed by the District Magistrate, Against this fixation, the landlord as well as the tenant were aggrieved and both preferred appeals under Section 22 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Sitapur. 1,69,600 and on this valuation rent was fixed by the District Magistrate, Against this fixation, the landlord as well as the tenant were aggrieved and both preferred appeals under Section 22 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Sitapur. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal on the basis that the valuation determined in the year 1984 could not form the basis for enhancement of rent, as the application under the first proviso to sub-section (o) had been made in the year 1981, The learned District Judge was of the opinion that the market value of the property at the time of the moving of application will have to be determined. He accordingly, remanded the case to the District Magistrate for re-determination of the market value of the property and consequent fixation of the rent. After remand the valuer fixed the market value of the property as Rs. 1,20,245. on this valuation the rent has been enhanced to Rs. 1,002'50 from April, 1981. The State is aggrieved by this fixation and has accordingly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. No petition has been filed by the landlord who, it appears, is satisfied with the fixation. 4. On behalf of the state it has been submitted that the District Magistrate has wrongly included the value of the land in fixing the market value of the building. According to the State, land is not comprised in the tenant let out to the department of the State. From the material on record it appears that the valuer has fixed the value of the building at Rs. 68,451 and of the appurtenant land at Rs. 51,794. The State's plea is that the figure 51,794 should be ignored. 5. The plea to the above effect appears to have been raised before the learned District Judge also. The learned District Judge has referred to the fact that after the valuer submitted his report the landlord filed an affidavit in paragraph 1 of which he affirmed that the building and land valued by the valuer had always been in the tenancy of the department of the State Government. The State did not controvert this fact by filing a counter affidavit. The State did not controvert this fact by filing a counter affidavit. When the State did not file any counter affidavit to controvert the landlord's affidavit the only conclusion which could be arrived at was that the land of which the value was determined to be Rs. 51,794 was also included in the tenement let out to the State. The learned District Judge has referred to other evidence also for coming to the conclusion that the land valued by the valuer too was included in the tenancy. Such evidence comprises of the allotment order, letter of the District Staff Officer, and the plan prepared by the valuer. The finding that the apartment land to the extent indicated in the valuer's report is comprised in the tenement is based on evidence on record and cannot therefore be interfered with. Once the value of the land is added to the value of the building the fixation done by the District Magistrate does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. It is true that in his application for enhancement of rent the landlord had mentioned the figure of Rs. 1000 per month while the enhancement made by the District Magistrate is Rs. 1002.50 P. per month. However, the landlord cannot be said to have confined his claim to Rs. 1000 per month as he had also stated that some other sum as may be deemed just and proper be fixed. The fixation cannot therefore be said to be in excess of the claim preferred. 7. In view of the above the fixation made by the District Magistrate, Sitapur, which has been confirmed in appeal by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sitapur, does not suffer from and infirmity. Accordingly the petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed with costs to Opposite Party No. 1.