RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners moved an application under section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of the rent on the basis that market value of building under tenancy of respondent No. 3 is Rs. 319000/ -. The respondent No. 3 filed his objection denying the enhancement of rent for the building under his tenancy. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Shahjahanpur accepted the report of Engineer of the contesting respondent vide order dated 5. 6. 2002. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8. 8. 2003 the petitioners pre ferred appeal as well as the contesting respondent also preferred appeal which too were dismissed vide order dated 8. 8. 2003, hence this writ petition. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has en hanced the rent of the disputed accommodation to Rs. 1042/- per month whereas rent according to valuation of the building should be Rs. 2000/- per month. 5. According to the explanation of sections 3 (i) building includes the land also over which building is constructed. Admittedly the Court below has only valued the building as assessed by the P. W. D. Engineer on the valuation report filed by the respondents. The value of the building ought to have also been in cluded while calculating the rent, hence I am of the considered opinion that the rent as per proviso to section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and according to the petitioners if the value of the land is increased, the rent would be Rs. 2650/- per month. This view is also taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and others v. VIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1991 (18) ALR 540 (SC ). I am also supported with my view to the aforesaid case of the Honble Supreme Court. 6. Admit. 7. The Writ Court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent as has been held in Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005 (1) ARC 526 Hari Mohan Kichlu v. VIIIth A. D. J. , Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 (57) ALR 485 and Khurshida v. A. D. J. , 2004 (55) ALR 586=2004 (2) ARC 64. 8. 6. Admit. 7. The Writ Court can enhance the rent to a reasonable extent as has been held in Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005 (1) ARC 526 Hari Mohan Kichlu v. VIIIth A. D. J. , Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 (57) ALR 485 and Khurshida v. A. D. J. , 2004 (55) ALR 586=2004 (2) ARC 64. 8. In view of the above, the tenant shall pay enhanced rent of Rs. 2650/-per month to the landlords from the date of the application as provided by or der dated 8. 8. 2003 till further orders with 10% increase in rent every 5 years which shall be payable to the landlord by 7th day of each succeeding month. If any amount of rent already paid by the tenant to the landlords shall be ad justed to the aforesaid amount. The arrears of the rent shall be paid by the ten ant to the landlords within a period of three months. In case of default in pay ment of arrears of rent the same shall be recovered from the tenant as arrears of land revenue within one month thereafter and shall be paid to the landlord thereafter. In case of non payment of the current rent as directed by this Court the landlord can get the disputed accommodation vacated with the help of po lice within a period of one month by giving notice in writing. 9. List for hearing in ordinary course. Petition Allowed. .