JUDGMENT B.S.Verma, J.- The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders of the respondent No.1 dated 4-7-1984 (Annexure No.6) and of respondent No.2 dated 6-1-1984 (Annexure No.5) only to the extent that they disallowed the petitioner's claim for enhancement of rent. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that Sri J.N. Puri, the landlord of 'Nath Cottage' and Simran Kuti' situated on Library Kin Krag Road Mussoorie moved an application under the provisions of Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 5.3.1983 for enhancement of the rent of the premises in suit. Both the properties were let out to the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 on annual rental of Rs. 3100/- in the year 1975. Rent was not enhanced since then. The constructed area of the two buildings is 5886 sq.ft. out of 1200 sq. ft. land in all. According to the applicant the market value of the disputed premises is Rs. 14 lacs, hence it was prayed that the animal rent of the same be fixed as Rs. 1,40.000/- per annum or Rs. 11,666.66 per month. 3. The O.Ps.-State resisted the application on the ground that the applicant Sri RB. Ram Rattan Ram Nath was not entitled to move the application. It was alleged that the applicant J.N. Puri was not the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. The condition of the building was not good hence the application for enhancement of rent alleging market value of the same as Rs. 14 lacs was challenged. 4. The learned Prescribed Authority after having examined the affidavits and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the present market value of the two buildirrgs under the tenancy of the O.Ps. after depreciation was Rs. 3,07,7501- and accordingly by the impugned order dated 6-1-1984 passed in Case No. 10 of 1982, the monthly rental of the disputed premises was fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,569.60. The learned Prescribed Authority rejected the valuation report filed by the applicant (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved by the said order, both the parties went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge and separate R.C. Appeal No. 44 of 1984 was preferred by the State. while the applicant filed R.C. Appeal No. 22 of 1984. 5. The learned Prescribed Authority rejected the valuation report filed by the applicant (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved by the said order, both the parties went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge and separate R.C. Appeal No. 44 of 1984 was preferred by the State. while the applicant filed R.C. Appeal No. 22 of 1984. 5. Before the appellate court, the State sought permission to file valuation report of the P.WD., which was relied up on by the State. After hearing both the parties. the appellate court admitted the report on record on payment of cost. It was contended on behalf of the State before the Additional District Judge that the application moved by the applicant was not to able as other owners of the property did not join him in filing the application. This contention was rejected on the ground that the applicant J.N.Puri was Karta of the family. It was also found that Tehsildar Dehradun had also certified that M/s RB. Prem' Nath and sons is the joint Hindu Family. After the death of RB.Prem Nath his son J.N. Puri has become the Karta. The appellate court on the basis of documentary evidence held that Sri J.N.Puri Was fully competent to move the application. 6. The main ground of challenge before the appellate court was as to what is the market value of the disputed premises. Both the parties 'have relied upon separate valuations assessed by two different agencies. After examining various aspect of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the method of valuing buildings on the basis of plinth area. Since in the P.WD. valuation report, plinth area of the premises was nut considered, the same was rejected. However, the report submitted by Sri M.R. Khanna, relied upon by the applicant was accepted. It was contended on behalf of the State that Sri M.R Khanna was not produced in the witness box for cross-examination, therefore, his report is of no avail. In this case affidavit of the valuer was filed. The appellate court was of the view that opportunity of cross-examination is a discretionary power of the court. The State did not like to cross-examine the valuer before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the contention of the State for cross-examining the valuer was rejected. In this case affidavit of the valuer was filed. The appellate court was of the view that opportunity of cross-examination is a discretionary power of the court. The State did not like to cross-examine the valuer before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the contention of the State for cross-examining the valuer was rejected. The appellate court also rejected the contention of the State to at the value of the open land cannot be included in the market value of the premises in suit on the ground that the entire properties known as Nath Cottage and Sumiran Kuti of the applicant are in the tenancy of the Forest Department and the land was being used by it. The learned appellate court was also of the view that the value of Pustas has to be included in the market value of the land to the extent they are essential for the safety of the premises in question. 7. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional District Judge has recorded his independent finding that the market value of the properties in question comes to Rs. 8,83,030/- and applying the method as provided under Section 21(8) of the Act, he has fixed the monthly rent of the suit premises at Rs. 7,358/- thereby dismissed the appeal preferred by the State and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.1984. Aggrieved, the landlord-applicant has come up before this Court in writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record including the judgment and orders passed by both the courts below. 9. In this case, application was moved before the Prescribed Authority for enhancement of rent of the premises in question. The applicant-petitioner has filed affidavit of the applicant as well as valuation report prepared by Sri M.R Khannet supported by affidavit and other documents. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the valuation report of Sri M.R. Khanna, filed by the applicant. The Prescribed Authority has assessed the market value of the premises in question at Rs. 3,07,150/- and fixed the monthly rental as Rs. 2,559.60 w.e.f. April 1982 onwards vide his judgment and order dated 6.1.1984. The applicant as well as the State having been aggrieved by the order of the A.D.M. (Admn.)/Prescribed Authority filed appeals. Both the appeals were heard and decided tog~ther. 3,07,150/- and fixed the monthly rental as Rs. 2,559.60 w.e.f. April 1982 onwards vide his judgment and order dated 6.1.1984. The applicant as well as the State having been aggrieved by the order of the A.D.M. (Admn.)/Prescribed Authority filed appeals. Both the appeals were heard and decided tog~ther. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has given categorical finding on each and every point, as narrated above, and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the State bearing Rent Control Appeal No. 44 of 1984 and partly allowed the• appeal no. 22 of 1984 preferred by the applicant. 10. It may be mentioned here that in the memo of writ petition, the petitioner has raised almost all the grounds challenging the finding of fact recorded by the courts below. This court in exercise of its. writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence. This court can only examine whether the courts below have committed a manifest error of law or the findings recorded by it are illegal or perverse. 11. From a perusal of complete reading of the judgment and order passed by the appellate court I find that the Additional District Judge has assigned cogent reasons in arriving at his own conclusions so far as the market value of the disputed premises is concerned. As court of appeal, the Additional District Judge has modified the order passed by the Prescribed Authority thereby the rent of the premises has been enhanced. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the appellate court. 12. The main ground of challenge in the present writ petition is that the respondent no. 1 has not considered the value of Pustas for the purposes of arriving at the market value of the property. This contention is not acceptable. The appellate court while working out the market value has taken 3000 sq.ft. pusta proportionate to the built up area and has compute~ the value thereof Rs. 1,50,000/- and the total market value of the disputed premises has been assessed at Rs. 8,83,030/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the market value of Pustas was not considered. The appellate court while working out the market value has taken 3000 sq.ft. pusta proportionate to the built up area and has compute~ the value thereof Rs. 1,50,000/- and the total market value of the disputed premises has been assessed at Rs. 8,83,030/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the market value of Pustas was not considered. In my view, the provisions of Section 21(8) of the Act have been properly considered by the Additional District Judge and on the basis of the procedure laid down under Section 21(8), the learned Additional District Judge has fixed the monthly rental of the suit premises as Rs. 7,358/-. 13. Having considered the entire material on record, I find that the impugned order of the Additional District Judge dated 4.7.1~84 does not suffer from perversity or illegality. The appellate court has not committed a manifest error of law in arriving at its findings. The writ petition is devoid of merit and must fail. 14. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.