JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—The delay in filing the writ petition has been explained in various paragraphs. There is no serious objection, therefore, the writ petition be treated within time. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have prayed this Court for quashing the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 4. It appears that petitioner No. 2 is a tenant of an accommodation owned by the respondent No.3. Earlier rent was being paid @ 600/- per month. Subsequently, the respondent landlord made an application under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of rent. With an affidavit the report of the valuer was submitted by the respondents to this effect that the rent of the aforesaid premises should be above Rs. 4,000/-. It also appears that the Tehsildar of the district was also directed to submit a report. He submitted a report on 24.3.2007 mentioning therein that the valuation of the property will be more than Rs. 5 lacs, and therefore, accordingly the rent will be Rs. 3,507/- per month. The competent authority after considering the pleadings of the parties and the report of the Tehsildar as well as the report of the Valuer has come to the conclusion that rate of rent should be Rs. 3,289/- per month, but an order of slider has been fixed that this enhanced rent will be payable from the date of order, i.e., 6.8.2007. 5. The respondent landlord, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed an appeal, which was numbered as Appeal No.1 of 2008. The main prayer in the said appeal was made that in view of the provision of the Act, i.e., Section 21(8) proviso, the entitlement will be from the date of making an application but the Prescribed Authority has committed an illegality to award the enhanced rate from the date of order. The Appellate Authority, after considering all relevant facts, has passed an order that the respondent landlord will be entitled for enhanced rent from the date of making an application in view of the Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The same is being reproduced below : "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.—(1)......... The Appellate Authority, after considering all relevant facts, has passed an order that the respondent landlord will be entitled for enhanced rent from the date of making an application in view of the Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The same is being reproduced below : "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.—(1)......... (8) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a Local Authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable : Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefore to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application : Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement." 6. State of Uttar Pradesh, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition. 7. Sri A.K. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel submits that as the valuer report was not filed with an affidavit, therefore, in view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court cannot be placed reliance, and therefore, fixing the enhanced rent by the Court below is an order, which is liable to be set aside. Sri Sinha has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court, reported in 1983 ( UP) RCC 549, State of U.P. v. Ist Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others and has placed reliance upon paragraph 15 and 16 of the said judgment. The same is being reproduced below : "15. By this affidavit the signature of Sri J.P. Varshney was proved. The question is whether such an affidavit is sufficient to prove the contents of the valuer’s report. The same is being reproduced below : "15. By this affidavit the signature of Sri J.P. Varshney was proved. The question is whether such an affidavit is sufficient to prove the contents of the valuer’s report. In our opinion, the answer is clearly in the negative, because the deponent of the affidavit does not purport to say that the contents of the valuer’s report were true to his own knowledge. In this connection, the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramji Dayawata’s case is apposite. It lays down : "Undoubtedly, mere proof of the handwriting of a document would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the facts stated in the documents. If the truth of the facts stated in a document is in issue mere proof of the handwriting and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the document. The truth or otherwise of the facts or contents so stated would have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e., by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue." 16. Under Order XIX, Rule 3, C.P.C. and affidavit in order to provide admissible evidence of the contents of a document must be of the person who can prove the contents of his own knowledge. In other words, the affidavit of a person who says that the executant of a document signed it in his presence, cannot be treated as admissible for the purpose of establishing the truth of the contents of the document." 8. On the other hand, Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that from the perusal of the order passed by the Court below, it is apparent that the rate of rent has been enhanced on the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar not on the basis of the report submitted by the valuer of the petitioner, therefore, the arguments raised on behalf of petitioners will not be applicable. In case, the report submitted by the valuer is placed reliance by the Courts below, and enhanced rent will be about Rs. 4,000/- per month. In case, the report submitted by the valuer is placed reliance by the Courts below, and enhanced rent will be about Rs. 4,000/- per month. In that contingency, the petitioners’ contention can be executed but in the present case, the enhanced rent has been fixed on an application made by the respondents on the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, even the Tehsildar has fixed rent Rs. 3,507/- per month but the Court below has fixed Rs. 3,289.00. Further submission has been made that in view of the proviso of Section 21(8), a landlord is entitled enhanced rent from the date of application. As the Prescribed Authority has committed this mistake, therefore, the appeal filed by the respondents-landlord has been allowed. 9. I have considered the submission made on behalf of parties and perused the record. 10. From the report, it is clear that on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar dated 24.3.07, the valuation of the property has been fixed Rs. 5 lacs and accordingly, on that basis, in his report filed by the Tehsildar, the rent was assessed Rs. 3,057.00 per month. The valuers report has been taken into consideration taking support of the Tehsildar report, but it was not the exclusive document to be placed reliance by the Courts below. That was a supported documents because from the report, it is clear that valuer has submitted a report that rent will be more than Rs. 4,000.00 per month but the same was not accepted by the Court below. Admittedly, the valuer authority of the petitioners, if there was any grievance regarding the report submitted by the Tehsildar, the objection should be filed by the petitioners, but the same has not been done. 11. As regards the decision submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that is totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case, as the enhanced rent has not been fixed relying upon the report submitted by the valuer. It was only fixed on the basis of report of Tehsildar. 12. Further, it is to be noted that in view of the provision of Section 21(8) of the Act No.13 of 1972 provides that in case an application is filed for enhancement of rent, if the same has been accepted by the competent authority, the landlord will be entitled to enhance rent from the date of making an application. 12. Further, it is to be noted that in view of the provision of Section 21(8) of the Act No.13 of 1972 provides that in case an application is filed for enhancement of rent, if the same has been accepted by the competent authority, the landlord will be entitled to enhance rent from the date of making an application. Section 21(8) of the Act No.13 of 1972 is being reproduced below : "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.—(1).......... (8) Nothing in clause (a) of sub- section(1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a Local Authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable : Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefore to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application : Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement." 13. In the present case, the Prescribed Authority on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar was pleased to enhanced the rate of rent but was pleased to pass an order that landlord will be entitled for enhanced rent from the date of order, i.e., 6.8.07. The said mistake has been rectified on an appeal filed by the respondents by the Appellate Court. 14. Therefore, in my opinion, the contention of the petitioner that as the valuer has not submitted an affidavit in support of the valuation report is not acceptable due to the fact that enhancement of rate of rent is the basis of the Tehsildar’s report. 15. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Courts below has been passed on the basis of material on evidence and no illegality has been committed by the Courts below. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. 15. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Courts below has been passed on the basis of material on evidence and no illegality has been committed by the Courts below. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. ————