S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) LIST revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 25. 8. 1993 given by R. C. and E. O. /city Magistrate, Bulandshahar in case No. 15/89 thereafter 21/92 under section 29-A (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Smt. Meera Singhal v. Indo Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. ( 3 ) INDO Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. which was the tenant/opposite party in the case before R. C. and E. O. and petitioner in this writ petition has now merged in Indian Oil Corporation. ( 4 ) SMT. Meera Singhal, landlady respondent No. 1 filed an application for enhancement of rent. Before filing application rent was Rs. 400/- per month. Total area of the tenanted accommodation is 1102 sq. mts. Petitioner tenant has installed a petrol pump over the property in dispute. ( 5 ) THROUGH impugned ex parte order dated 25. 8. 1993 rent was enhanced to rs. 13,775/- per month from November 1988. Restoration application filed by the petitioner was also rejected by R. C. and E. O. on 28. 2. 1994. ( 6 ) IN the order dated 25. 8. 1993 it was held that circle rate of the land in the area in question as circulated by the Collector under Stamp Act and Rules was Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. for residential purposes and three times of the same for commercial purposes i. e. Rs. 1,500/- per sq. mtr. Multiplying said figure of 1,500/-by the area of the land in dispute market value was determined to be rs. 16,53,000/- and 1/120 of the same is Rs. 13,775/- was fixed as monthly rent. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued only one point and that is that market value cannot be determined on the basis of circle rate alone. ( 8 ) IN this regard I fully agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Circle rates are mere guidelines. Market value cannot be determined solely on the basis of circle rate. In this regard reference may be made an authority given by me in I. B. P. Co. ( 8 ) IN this regard I fully agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Circle rates are mere guidelines. Market value cannot be determined solely on the basis of circle rate. In this regard reference may be made an authority given by me in I. B. P. Co. v. R. C. and E. O. , 2006 64 ALR 64 ( 9 ) EARLIER in this case I tried to persuade the parties to enter into compromise regarding rate of rent. In the order sheet dated 16. 5. 2006 it was noted as under :-"learned Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not agreed to pay more than Rs. 7,000/- per month as rent under compromise. Learned counsel for the tenant states that the said amount is not acceptable to his client. " ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the tenant petitioner has today again expressed the readiness of the petitioner to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as rent w. e. f. November, 1988 (R. C. and E. O. has also directed payment of enhanced rent w. e. f. said date ). ( 11 ) IN my opinion under the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that market value of land at the relevant time was more than Rs. 8,40,000/ -. In any case landlord did not file any appropriate evidence (exemplar etc.) to show the market value of adjoining land. As held in the earlier part of this judgment the circle rate cannot be the sole basis for determining the market value. I have also discussed this aspect in another case which is reported in Ram Khelawan v. State, 2005 98 RD 511. Landlord only filed valuers report and the valuer valued the land only and only on the basis of circle rate of Rs. 1,500/- per sq. meter. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified. It is held that petitioner is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month w. e. f. November, 1988. Arrears (after adjusting the amount of Rs. 4,000/-per month paid under interim order of this Court) shall be paid within six months positively. Petition Allowed. .