JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. There is a middle aged lady who owns a house at New Jhusi, Allahabad, which she has let to the State of Uttar Pradesh and under occupation of an allied office and use of the Chief Medical Officer. The rent for the premises used by the Chief Medical Officer was Rs. 75/- per month. The lady was not satisfied with the rent which was paid to her and had desired a revision. 2. The lady moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad by an application, in effect, under sub-clause (8) of Section 21, with a prayer that the rent of the accommodation be revised in accordance with law, and specifically sought revision of rent from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 1277.66 in accordance with the report of the qualified Valuer on the basis of the formula prescribed in the aforesaid section. This was registered as case no. 414 of 1981. The Chief Medical Officer did not file any objections despite service of notice on behalf of the lady. The claim of the lady, as set in her application remained uncontroverted. However, unconnected with the aspect that the Chief Medical Officer did not file any objections, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the lady seeking revision of rent on the ground that the Valuer's report which she had filed upon which revision of rent had been desired had not been supported by an affidavit, and the exemplars of the rent charged by owners, in like circumstances, had not been brought on record. The application of the lady was rejected on 23 October 1981. The lady filed an appeal before the District Judge, this was rent appeal no. 810 of 1981 : Premlata Agarwal v. State of U. P. The appeal remained pending before the District Judge for about a little over three years. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears the Chief Medical Officer was seeking an out of court settlement. The record shows that the lady was being persuaded to accept a sum of Rs. 300/- per month and withdraw the case pending in appeal before the District Judge. The lady was not totally agreeable to the idea. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears the Chief Medical Officer was seeking an out of court settlement. The record shows that the lady was being persuaded to accept a sum of Rs. 300/- per month and withdraw the case pending in appeal before the District Judge. The lady was not totally agreeable to the idea. This trend is discernible from the record upon a perusal of inter-departmental communication between the Deputy Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad dated 14 January 1982 and letter dated 18 April 1983 written by the lady to the Chief Medical Officer. From these two letters it is clear that the Chief Medical Officer was agreeable in principle that the rent ought to be increased but could not give an amount over and above Rs. 300/- per month. The Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad was intimated in the letter written by the lady, dated 18 April 1983 ; "I have contacted your office and am apprised that enhancement of rent of the premises is only possible from Rs. 75/-per month to Rs. 300/- per month. I agree with your proposal for enhancement of the rent without prejudice to my right." The Court is setting this aspect on record as on behalf of the State it was being suggested that the enhancement upto Rs. 300/- was at the lady's initiative. This was not so and in so far as the State is concerned while it assured the lady that she may have enhancement upto Rs. 300/- per month, sanction was obtained for 250/- per month. This is clear from the communication between the Chief Medical Officer Allahabad, addressed to the Deputy Chief Medical Officer (IV) Allahabad dated 9 April 1984. Between the promise and the assurance which was given to the lady and the sanction which was being obtained, more than two years had elapsed. The promise was for Rs. 300/- per month and the sanction obtained was for Rs. 250/-. This was fait accompli after having assured the lady that she may have Rs. 300/- per month, to which she agreed reluctantly ; she was being offered Rs. 250/- per month. 3. Thus, the lady got an occasion not to withdraw her case and so pursued her appeal before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad. 250/-. This was fait accompli after having assured the lady that she may have Rs. 300/- per month, to which she agreed reluctantly ; she was being offered Rs. 250/- per month. 3. Thus, the lady got an occasion not to withdraw her case and so pursued her appeal before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad. The IIIrd Additional District Judge disagreed with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in rejecting the application under Section 21 (8) of the Act aforesaid. The learned Additional District Judge aforesaid accepted the Valuer's report made in accordance with Section 21 (8) of the Act, aforesaid by which the rent in accordance with the formula prescribed stood at Rs. 1277.66. It may also be mentioned, that the learned Additional District Judge has given a finding that the report of the Valuer remained unrebutted. 4. The only ground upon which the State of U. P. has impugned the order of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, in appeal is that the Valuer's report was not supported by an affidavit and thus it could not be accepted by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge. To support this proposition learned Standing Counsel has cited a decision of this Court of a Division Bench, reported in 1983 U. P. Rent Control Cases 648. In answer to the argument of the learned Standing Counsel it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is correct that the Valuer's report had not been supported by an affidavit and the State of U. P. is hardly in a position to take such an argument before this Court as it had two occasions to object to this report but it did not do so. In a reference to this, learned counsel for the respondent is not incorrect. Before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the State of U. P. had knowledge of the fact that an application for enhancement of rent had been moved under sub-clause (8) of Section 21 but despite several dates being fixed, it chose not to file objections. The IIIrd Additional District Judge on this aspect, records the submission of the landlady that the matter was adjourned before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer specifically for the purpose of receiving objections on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer and recording his evidence. The IIIrd Additional District Judge on this aspect, records the submission of the landlady that the matter was adjourned before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer specifically for the purpose of receiving objections on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer and recording his evidence. The Chief Medical Officer neither brought his objections on record nor produced any evidence to dislodge the claim made by the landlady. This aspect had not been denied by the State of U. P. Thus the only technicality upon which the State of U. P. relies upon is the submission that the Valuer's report not having been supported by an affidavit, ought to be rejected. 5. Should the State of U. P. have filed its objections before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and had rebutted the case of the lady, seeking enhancement of rent whatever her claim was worth, then it could have today taken the plea that the evidence produced by the landlady in the valuer's report was without proof. The veracity of the valuer's report had not been questioned by the State of U. P. but it did not cease to be evidence. The only aspect which needs to be considered now is given an opportunity to the landlady to fortify her evidence and claim. This implies that the valuer must take responsibility of affirming the report by his affidavit. The State of U. P. had always had the opportunity to rebut this report but did not do so. The record shows beyond reasonable doubt that the State of U.P. neither filed objections to the claim sought by the lady nor objected to the report of the valuer. It cannot be granted this opportunity now. 6. This Court considers it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Court of the District Judge where the appeal filed by the lady being Rent Control Appeal no. 810 of 1981 had been pending. It is being made clear that the matter is not being remanded to the Court of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer afresh on merits, as the State of U. P. chose not to contest the case, nor filed objections or produced the Chief Medical Officer in evidence. 810 of 1981 had been pending. It is being made clear that the matter is not being remanded to the Court of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer afresh on merits, as the State of U. P. chose not to contest the case, nor filed objections or produced the Chief Medical Officer in evidence. Before the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, upon remand, the landlady will have an opportunity to file an affidavit of the valuer to take responsibility upon oath by his affidavit to fortify the report dated 14 April 1981. Filing an affidavit fortifying the valuer's report after six years would cease to have any meaning, as in so far as the lady is concerned to rent so enhanced would virtually remain static, effective from the date of the judgment in appeal by the IIIrd Addi. District Judge, Allahabad. In accordance with the first proviso to sub-clause (8) of section 21, the rent so enhanced is payable from the month following the date of the application. The second proviso to the aforesaid sub-clause (8) permits the landlord to seek another enhancement of rent after expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last enhancement made. There was slight error in the order of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge when the enhancement of rent was made applicable from the date of the judgment in appeal. The enhancement of rent was to be in accordance with law, to be effective from the date of filing of the application by the landlord. Now that the matter is being remanded the report of the Valuer fortifying the claim of the lady seeking enhancement of rent cannot remain static when between the making of the application by the lady and today, inflation may have over shot the rent which the lady had claimed in 1981. After the first report of the Valuer dt. 14th April 1981 has been fortified by an affidavit the lady is permitted to file a supplementary report also supported by an affidavit seeking revision of the rent as of date. This would be in accord with the intention of the second proviso to sub-clause (8) of section 21. The supplementary report of the Valuer will be subject to the scrutiny of the learned District Judge. 7. This would be in accord with the intention of the second proviso to sub-clause (8) of section 21. The supplementary report of the Valuer will be subject to the scrutiny of the learned District Judge. 7. Other objections taken before the District Judge will not be permitted to be raised again by the State of U. P. These are objections to her ownership and to the filing of Khasra report of the Municipal Corporation. The Additional District Judge, in the appellate order which has been impugned has set the record right that the State of U. P. itself was paying rent to the lady and thus it could not be permitted to object to her title to the property. In reference to this the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge has' already recorded that it is not disputed that the rent was being paid by the State of U. P. to the lady and the application for enhancement of rent was maintainable. 8. Learned Additional District Judge had reduced the claim of the lady when she sought enhancement of rent in the sum of Rs. 1277.66 per month. Rent, according to the learned Illrd Additional District Judge ought to have been Rs. 1000/- per month only. Having found that under the circumstances and facts as presented, remaining unrebutted, there was no justification in reducing the unrebutted claim of Rs. 1271.66 to Rs. 1000/- without cause. The error, is corrected accordingly. The State of U. P. has not been diligent in the manner in which it met the case of the lady before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer when she sought enhancement of rent and chose neither to file any objections to the claim made against it nor rebutted the claim by evidence. In appeal by the landlady before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, the State of U. P. had yet another opportunity to file objections, but it would not do so. In writ petition before this Court, the State of U. P. has taken a technical objection when upon its own conduct it had not even objected to the lady's case for enhancement of rent. In writ petition before this Court, the State of U. P. has taken a technical objection when upon its own conduct it had not even objected to the lady's case for enhancement of rent. This Court is exercising its jurisdiction in remanding the matter to the District Judge, not on the plea of the State of U. P., but independently on the aspect that a claim for enhancement of Tent must be well fortified with responsibility and in accordance with law. It is in these circumstances that the lady is being required, to fortify the Valuer's report by the latter's affidavit so that in future a claim to enhancement of rent must be made with responsibility. In the present case the State of U. P. cannot raise objections to it that the Valuer's report is erroneous as the report was always on record and it chose not to object to it. The State of U. P. may if it so desire object to the supplementary report which may be filed on the quantum of any enhancement which may be sought over and above the claim made by the landlady when she filed the application under sub-clause (8) of section 21. 9. To summarise the court hereby directs the District Judge, Allahabad to act on this order of remand made by this court by calling upon respondent no. 2 Premlata Agarwal to fortify the Valuer's report dated 14 April 1981 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) by an affidavit of the said Valuer within 15 days of the notice so made by the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, unless such notice is accepted by the said respondent in the Court-(i) to permit the said respondent to supplement the Valuer's report dated 14 April 1981 aforesaid, in accordance with the report already made ; (ii) permit the State of U. P. to file objections to the supplementary report if brought on record by the said respondent ; and (iii) dispose of the appeal consequent upon the said order of remand made by this Court within two months of certified copy of the judgment being placed before the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad. 10. The District Judge, Allahabad would be at liberty to hear the matter consequent upon remand by this Court or assign it to any other Additional District Judge. 10. The District Judge, Allahabad would be at liberty to hear the matter consequent upon remand by this Court or assign it to any other Additional District Judge. In the light of the observations made the present writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order on costs.