JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Landlords respondents No. 2 to 5, Magan Bihari Kapoor and others filed an application for enhancement of rent under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant petitioner. The agreed rent was Rs. 2,875/- per month. Landlords stated that market value was Rs. 12,76,000/-, hence rent must be fixed at 1/120 of the said figure, i.e. Rs. 10,634/- per month. Landlords also filed valuer’s report. R.C. & E.O./S.D.M., Etah did not agree with the report of the valuer filed on behalf of the landlords. Taking pragmatic view of the matter, R.C. & E.O. held that in the year 1978, rent was settled at Rs. 2,875/- per month and during intervening period of about eight years, market value must have doubled. Accordingly, R.C. & E.O. fixed monthly rent @ Rs. 5,000/- per month payable with effect from the date of the order, i.e. 27.3.1996. 2. Before R.C. & E.O., the case had been registered as Case No. 6 of 1996. Application by landlords was filed on 26.3.1993. It appears that number, i.e. Case No. 6 of 1996, was allotted afresh in 1996. 3. Against the said order, landlords filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996. 4. Lower appellate Court held that building was situate in an important locality and was near cinema hall, roadways, bus-stand, Court’s campus and officers’ residence. Lower appellate Court only and only on the basis of valuer’s report filed by the landlord held that market value given in the said report, i.e. Rs. 12,76,000/-, was correct. Accordingly, lower appellate Court fixed the rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. April, 1993. 5. As far as direction of the lower appellate Court for payment of the enhanced rent with effect from the month following the date of the application is concerned, it is quite in accordance with Section 21(8) of the Act. R.C. & E.O. had wrongly directed the payment of the enhanced rent with effect from the date of order. 6. However, I do not agree with the lower appellate Court regarding market value and quantum of rent. Valuer’s report, which is sole basis of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The report was submitted by Sri S.B. Siromani, registered architect. 6. However, I do not agree with the lower appellate Court regarding market value and quantum of rent. Valuer’s report, which is sole basis of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The report was submitted by Sri S.B. Siromani, registered architect. It is mentioned in the report that total area is 736 square meters out of which covered area is 441.55 square meters. In the report, first the valuation of construction was assessed at Rs. 1,60,216/-. Thereafter, it is mentioned as follows : “Add for the rise in cost index in Etah @ 446% of the total cost as above (i.e. Rs. 7,14,563/- which was in respect of building).” 7. Thereafter, total amount of Rs. 8,74,779/- was multiplied by 17 and divided by 70. 70 was expected age of the building and 15 was the age at the time of inspection, i.e. 1993. In this manner, deduction of Rs. 1,87,452/- was made and cost of construction was assessed at Rs. 6,87,337/-. Thereafter, land was valued @ Rs. 800/- per square meter amounting to Rs. 5,88,800/-. It is not mentioned in the report that from where, valuer got the rate of land @ Rs. 800/- per square meter. 8. Even the formula adopted for determining the value of structure was not correct. Actually, architect did not give any formula for determining the valuation, it was not explained that from where rise in cost index at Etah was determined to be 446%. 9. Under Chapter-IX, of P.W.D., B & R Branch, Uttar Pradesh Maintenance Manual, Part-ll Buildings, it is provided under Chapter 9.02 as follows : “9. 2. 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) 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) .. ...... 1.0 75 ............................... 1.3 50 ............................... 2.0 25 ............................... 4.0 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.” 10. Even landlords respondents have not been able to explain the method of determination and calculation adopted by the valuer. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that as determination of market value is question of fact hence in exercise of writ jurisdiction, findings in this regard cannot be reversed. In this regard, several authorities have been cited. However, I find that report of the valuer is not at all believable and admissible in evidence as valuer has not given any basis. Purely subjective opinion even of an expert is not admissible. Under Section 51, Indian Evidence Act, it is provided that whenever, the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds, on which such opinion is based, are also relevant. In this regard, in the following authorities, it has been held that opinion of experts without grounds, reasons and factual data are not admissible : (1) AIR 1933 All. 394 (2) AIR 1934 All. 273 (DB) (3) AIR 1959 All. 53 12. Same principle will apply to the expert’s report in respect of valuation. 13. In my opinion, R.C. & E.O. had applied very correct formula. Building was constructed in the year 1978 and was immediately let out to L.I.C. @ Rs. 2,875/- per month. During five years, market value might have almost doubled. Accordingly, R.C. & E.O. rightly determined rent to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. 13. In my opinion, R.C. & E.O. had applied very correct formula. Building was constructed in the year 1978 and was immediately let out to L.I.C. @ Rs. 2,875/- per month. During five years, market value might have almost doubled. Accordingly, R.C. & E.O. rightly determined rent to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. However R.C. & E.O. was not justified in directing payment of enhanced rent with effect from the date of order. Enhanced rent ought to have been directed to be paid w.e.f. April, 1993. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. The judgment and order passed by R.C. & E.O. is approved subject to modification that enhanced rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month shall be payable w.e.f. April, 1993. Arrears, if any, shall be paid positively within four months. ————