Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 158 (UTT)

STATE OF U. P. v. BIBI RANI DUGGAL

2006-04-07

B.S.VERMA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. Since both these writ petitions arise out of the same impugned judgment and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 6.1.1984/A.D.M. (Admn.) Dehradun in Case No. 11 of 1982 Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal V. State of U.P. and another as well as common judgment and order dated 6.1.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge Dehradun passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 23 of 1984 and Rent Control Appeal No. 45 of 1984 preferred against the impugned order dated 6.1.1984 by both the parties separately and as common questions are involved for determination in both the writ petitions, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge Dehradun dated 4.7.1984 in Rent Control Appeal No. 23 of 1984 and Rent Control Appeal No. 45 of 1984 the appeal no. 45 of 1984 filed by the State was dismissed while the Appeal No. 23 of 84 preferred by the landlady Bibi Rani Duggal was allowed in part and the monthly rent of ‘Rani Villa’ was fixed Rs. 2230/-. Writ Petition No. 4005 of 2001 has been preferred by the landlady Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal against the same judgment and order dated 4.7.1984 aforesaid. 3. Relevant facts of the case are that Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal is the landlady of ‘Rani Villa’situate on Library kin-krag road in Mussoorie, which was let out to Divisional Forest Officer Yamuna Forest Division at annual rental of Rs. 1250/- in the year 1975. Since then a long period has elapsed. Application was moved by the landlady for enhancing the rent at Rs. 3,333.34 per month in view of the market value of the disputed premises. Before the Prescribed Authority, the application was contested by the State on the ground that the condition of the premises was not good hence enhancement of rent was not justified. 4. The learned Prescribed Authority after examining the material on record had held that the present market value of the disputed premises was not more than Rs. 90,028/- and accordingly fixed the monthly rent as Rs. 750.20 per month vide judgment and order dated 6.1.1984. Being aggrieved, both the parties went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun and both the appeals were registered separately. 90,028/- and accordingly fixed the monthly rent as Rs. 750.20 per month vide judgment and order dated 6.1.1984. Being aggrieved, both the parties went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun and both the appeals were registered separately. Before the appellate court, the valuation report of the Public Works Department was made part of the record. Regarding market value of the disputed premises, the landlady placed reliance upon the valuer’s report (paper no. 11/6) while the State relied upon the P.W.D. report brought on record. According to the landlady the market value of the disputed premises was Rs. 3,98,935/- after deducting depreciation of value. The learned appellate court rejected the P.W.D. report filed by the State and accepted the valuer’s report relied upon by the landlady. 5. The learned Additional District judge after examining the evidence on record ultimately came to the conclusion that the market value of the disputed accommodation was Rs. 2,67,685/- and 1/12th of 10% thereof comes to Rs. 2230.10. Accordingly, the monthly rent was fixed as Rs. 2230/- thereby the appeal preferred by the State was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the landlady was partly allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.1984. 6. Dis-satisfied by the impugned judgment and order, both the parties have come up before this Court in these two writ petitions. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record including the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. 8. In writ petition no. 4003 of 2001, the petitioner-State has challenged the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, it is evident that the appellate court has assigned reasons for not accepting the P.W.D. report filed by the State. The appellate court has also scrutinized the report submitted by Sri M.R.Khanna, Government appointed valuer and chartered engineer, whereby the market value of the tenanted accommodation was fixed as Rs. 3,98,935/-. The appellate court instead of accepting this market value has arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the disputed premises was Rs. 2,67,785/- and 1/12th of 10% of the same comes to Rs. 2230.10. The finding recorded by the appellate court is a finding of fact and this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal. The appellate court instead of accepting this market value has arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the disputed premises was Rs. 2,67,785/- and 1/12th of 10% of the same comes to Rs. 2230.10. The finding recorded by the appellate court is a finding of fact and this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal. The impugned order of the Additional District Judge is based on evidence on record. The points raised in these writ petitions have already been fully considered by the appellate court. 9. It have been vehemently submitted on behalf of the State that the appellate court after having admitted the P.W.D. report ought to have remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for considering the said report. This argument is misconceived. The court of appeal exercises the jurisdiction vested in the trial court and if the appellate court itself considered the report, it cannot be said that the appellate court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it. A complete reading of the impugned judgment and order passed by the additional District Judge clearly indicates that the learned Judge has considered each and every aspect of the case before coming to its own conclusions. 10. The petitioner-landlady has also challenged the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court in the memo of writ petition. It would suffice to mention that the scrutiny of findings of fact is not the subject matter of writ jurisdiction unless it is shown that the finding is perverse or the appellate court committed manifest error of law. 11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties in the light of the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge and the material placed on record, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from perversity or illegality. The appellate court does not appear to have committed a manifest error. The provisions of Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 have been fully adhered to while deciding the appeals by the Additional District Judge and the rent has been enhanced in accordance with law. Both the appeals are devoid of merit and must fail. 12. Both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.