JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is landlords’ writ petition arising out of proceedings for enhancement of rent under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 initiated against the tenants, respondents No. 3 and 4, who are Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Shahjahanpur and State of U.P. through Collector, Shahjahanpur. In the tenanted accommodation, a school is being run. Tenanted accommodation consists of one hall, two rooms, two verandahs and courtyards. Total area of the accommodation in dispute including open land is about 240 square meters (238 square meters exactly). The agreed rent was Rs. 285/- per month. Petitioners landlords’ application for enhancement of rent was registered as case No. 01 of 1995, Smt. Ishtiyaq Bano Begum v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari and others on the file of R.C. & E.O./City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, through order dated 5.6.2002, enhanced the rent to Rs. 1042/- per month payable with effect from the date of decision. Against the said order landlady filed P.A. Appeal No. 23 of 2002. Tenants also filed appeal against the same order being P.A. Appeal No. 22 of 2002. A.D.J., Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur, through judgment and order dated 8.8.2003, dismissed the appeal of the tenant and allowed the appeal of the landlady in part. Appellate Court approved the decision of R.C. & E.O. regarding extent of enhancement rate of rent, i.e. Rs. 1042/- per month. However appellate Court directed that the said rent should be payable w.e.f. 25.8.1995, the date on which application for enhancement of rent was filed and not w.e.f. date of order of R.C. & E.O. (5.6.2002) as was directed by R.C. & E.O. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the heirs of the landlady. Tenant has not filed any writ petition against the said order. 4. The valuer of the landlady had valued the cost of construction at Rs. 1,28,000. The valuer of the tenant had valued the constructions at Rs. 1,25,000/-. 5. The main argument raised by learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner is that the valuer of the tenant valued only the super structure/construction and did not include cost of the land in the total valuation of the tenanted property. Copy of report of tenant’s valuer is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 1,25,000/-. 5. The main argument raised by learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner is that the valuer of the tenant valued only the super structure/construction and did not include cost of the land in the total valuation of the tenanted property. Copy of report of tenant’s valuer is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The valuer has applied the standard formula for determining the value of the structure depending upon age and expected life of the building, the material used in the construction and present rate of construction. The formula is as follows : D = P (1–rd/100)n 6. Under Chapter-IX of P.W.D., B & R Branch, Uttar Pradesh Maintenance Manual, Part-II Buildings, it is provided under Chapter 9.02 as follows : “9.02. Permanent Buildings.—The buildings should be divided into four parts, viz. (i) walls, (ii) roof, (iii) floors, and (iv) doors and windows, and the cost of each part should first be worked out on the present day rates. The life of each of the four parts mentioned above, should then be ascertained with the help of Form I, Annexure (B) to Chapter XIII of the Financial Handbook, Volume V, Part I (see Appendix 37) and the depreciated value calculated with the formula- D = P (1–rd/100)n where (D) is the depreciated value, (P) is the cost at the present market rate, (rd) the fixed percentage of depreciation and (n) the number of years the buildings had been constructed. The values of (rd) may be assumed as noted below : Structures with 100 year life (rd) ..................................10 75.....................................................................1.3 50.....................................................................2.0 25.....................................................................7.0 20.....................................................................5.0 The values arrived at will be exclusive of cost of land, water supply, electric and sanitary fittings, etc. and will apply to those buildings only which have been properly maintained. If the repairs had been neglected in the past and the present condition is bad or dilapidated suitable deduction should be made from the value as deducted above, for neglected repairs (not for ordinary repairs). The present value of land and water supply, sanitary and electric fittings, etc. should be added to the valuation of the building to arrive at total valuation of the property. It would be seen from the above that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the extent to which deduction should be made for neglected maintenance.” 7. should be added to the valuation of the building to arrive at total valuation of the property. It would be seen from the above that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the extent to which deduction should be made for neglected maintenance.” 7. Valuer has determined the plinth area of the building as approximately 110 square meters. Ultimately valuer arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Current cost was determined as Rs. 3,17,900/-. This figure was arrived at by multiplying plinth area by 2890. Thereafter, depreciation in terms of the above formula was determined. Valuation of doors, windows etc. was separately calculated. Ultimately depreciated value came to Rs. 1,25,000/-. The applied formula is meant only for determining the value of the construction and not of the land. 8. As far as cost of construction as determined by valuer of the tenant, i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/-, is concerned, it is quite all right. 9. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, tenant asserted that circle rate at the relevant time was Rs. 800/- per square meter (circle rate as determined and calculated by Collector under Section 47-A, Stamp Act/Rules framed in that regard.) Landlord’s valuer valued the land at Rs. 1,90,400/-. The total cost of land and building in this manner came to Rs. 3,19,000/-. 10. Lower appellate Court held that circle rate could not be taken to be correct rate of market value. However, thereafter lower appellate Court did not make any attempt to determine the market value of the land. Copy of circle rates at the relevant time is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Rate of land on main road is Rs. 1400/- per square meter, on the road of Mohalla Rs. 1,150/- per square meter and of other lands Rs. 850/- per square meter. 11. There cannot be any doubt that for determining the valuation of entire accommodation, land of the tenanted accommodation is also to be valued. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. v. VIIth A.D.J., Saharanpur, 1992 (2) ARC 571. However it is also correct that market value cannot be determined on the basis of circle rate. They are mere guidelines. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. v. VIIth A.D.J., Saharanpur, 1992 (2) ARC 571. However it is also correct that market value cannot be determined on the basis of circle rate. They are mere guidelines. They are conclusive neither for determining the market value for the purposes of determining the compensation under Land Acquisition Act nor for determining market value under Section 21(8) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited an authority of this Court reported in State of U.P. v. H.N. Dixit, 1993 (2) ARC 1989. In the said authority, it has been held that while determining the market value of the building under Section 21(8) of the Act, value fixed by Collector under Stamp Act/Rules is binding upon the State. Unfortunately in the said authority, several authorities of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1986 All 107 Kaka Singh v. Addl. Collector and Dist. Magistrate (F. and R.) was not taken into consideration. I have discussed several authorities of the Supreme Court and of this Court in the judgment reported in Ramkhelawan v. State, 2005 (98) RD 511 and held that circle rates are not relevant for determining market value even for the purposes of stamp deficiency cases. Same principle will apply for determining the market value for the purposes of Section 21(8) of the Act. 12. The best mode of proving the market value is by filing exemplars whereby nearby properties may have been sold around the date on which market value is to be determined. 13. However to remand the matter to R.C. & E.O. after so much time will not be in the interest of justice (application for enhancement of rent was filed in the Year 1995). 14. Accordingly, in my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to determine the market value of the land at 75% of the circle rate, i.e. Rs. 600/- per square meter (240 x 600 = 1,44,000). 15. Adding Rs. 1,25,000/-, which is cost of construction, to the above figure resultant figure of Rs. 2,69,000/- is arrived at. Dividing it by 120, monthly rent comes to about Rs. 2240/-. 16. The tenant had determined the rate at about Rs. 2650/-, which was about 1/120 of Rs. 3,19,000/-. 17. 600/- per square meter (240 x 600 = 1,44,000). 15. Adding Rs. 1,25,000/-, which is cost of construction, to the above figure resultant figure of Rs. 2,69,000/- is arrived at. Dividing it by 120, monthly rent comes to about Rs. 2240/-. 16. The tenant had determined the rate at about Rs. 2650/-, which was about 1/120 of Rs. 3,19,000/-. 17. Accordingly, it is directed that w.e.f. September, 1995, tenant respondent shall be liable to pay rent @ Rs. 2240/- per month (application for enhancement of rent was filed on 25.8.1995). Writ petition is accordingly disposed of and impugned judgments and orders are modified. 18. It is reiterated that while determining the above rent, no precise formula is being followed. However determination of market value at a particular time always involves some guess work and the above figure may be said to be reasonable, informed guess. 19. Writ petition is disposed of by deciding the controversy finally in order to give a decent guietus to this litigation/dispute as was done in a land acquisition case by the Supreme Court in AIR 2000 SC 2619 , Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi. Latter part of Para-7 of which is quoted below : “We make it clear that we have followed the abovesaid approach not so much by way of any principle but more by way of finding out a reasonable solution so as to give a quietus to this litigation. The lands were acquired in early eighties and by this time a period of about 20 years has elapsed.” 20. Learned counsel for the landlord petitioner also argued that due to passage of 13 years, market value of lands had risen by leaps and bounds and the benefit of the said increase should also be granted to the landlord. However, this argument is not tenable as market value has to be determined on the date of filing of the application and increased rent is payable with effect from the month next after the month of filing of the application. 21. The arrears shall positively be paid within three months. ————