Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 568 (UTT)

U. P. JAL NIGAM v. PREM SAGAR

2012-09-12

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14-3-2000 and the order dated 15-2-2001, passed by Prescribed Authority and IInd Addl. District Judge/Rent Control Officer, respectively, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to this writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition, according to the petitioner, the petitioner had occupied the premises in question in the year 1975 and a lease-deed was executed on 19-4-1971. At that time the agreed rent was Rs. 4,00/- per month. Thereafter the respondent/landlord filed application U/S 21(8) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, for enhancement of rent of the premises in question before the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority on 5-1-1988 allowed the application and fixed the monthly rent @ Rs. 1757/-. No appeal was filed against the order dated 5.1.1988, passed by the Prescribed Authority. 3. Again on 7-7-1994 the respondent filed an application for enhancement of rent U/S 2 1(8) of the Act, bearing No. 4/1994 before the Prescribed Authority, since as per provision of Section 21(8) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the landlord may file application for enhancement of rent after a lapse of five years. The said application was numbered as 5 of 1994 before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner/tenant contested the application by filing his objection. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence parties as well as the market value of the premises enhanced the rent @ Rs. 19,600/- per month vide order dated 31-7-1996. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner preferred before the District Judge which was numbered as Appeal No. 115 of 1996. The Addl. District Judge vide order dated 11-10-1996 set aside the order dated 31-7-1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the case back to the Prescribed Authority. After remand the application of the landlord was heard afresh by the Prescribed Authority/Addl. District Magistrate and fixed the rent of premises in question @ Rs. 6,475/- vide order dated 14.3.2000. 4. The order dated 14-3-2000, passed by Prescribed Authority was assailed by both the parties by filing appeals. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was numbered as RCA No. 100 of 2000 and the appeal preferred by the respondents/tenants was numbered as RCA No. 82 of 2000. 6,475/- vide order dated 14.3.2000. 4. The order dated 14-3-2000, passed by Prescribed Authority was assailed by both the parties by filing appeals. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was numbered as RCA No. 100 of 2000 and the appeal preferred by the respondents/tenants was numbered as RCA No. 82 of 2000. The 2nd Addl. District Judge, Dehradun, after hearing the parties allowed the appeal of respondents/landlord partly and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/tenant and fixed the rent of the premises @ Rs.16,266/- per month vide impugned order dated 15.2.2001. The learned appellate court did not accept the contention of the petitioner tenant that the as per agreement to sale executed by the landlord in the year 1996, the valuation of whole property has been assessed as Rs. 14,000,00/- and the valuation report submitted by the landlord cannot be made basis for assessing the rent. It was also observed that against the valuation report submitted by the landlord, no objection has been filed by the tenant and the valuation report submitted by the landlord was made basis for calculating the rent. The landlord had submitted the valuation of Rs. 1,95,200/- based on market value and on the basis of it fixed the rent @ Rs. 16,266/- (Rs 1,95,200/- x 1/12 ). 5. Aggrieved by the above order passed by learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. The grounds taken in the writ petition are that the rent has been fixed including the appurtenant which was not in the tenancy of the petitioner. The learned Addl. District Judge has not considered the depreciation value of the building in question as the building is 62 years old. 7. The respondents/landlord filed the counter affidavit and denied the contents of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/landlord has informed to the court that that on 3 1.12.2004 the possession of premises in question has been handed over by the petitioner/tenant and now the only dispute remains what amount of rent was to be paid by the petitioner. 10. 9. Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/landlord has informed to the court that that on 3 1.12.2004 the possession of premises in question has been handed over by the petitioner/tenant and now the only dispute remains what amount of rent was to be paid by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has contended that the learned appellate court has committed manifest error of law by fixing the rent on the basis of circle rate, whereas the circle rate is for the purpose of realization of stamp duty and it cannot be a market value. It was further contended that the appurtenant land was also included in the market value and that land cannot be included for the purpose of valuation of the premises in question. 11. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that circle rate cannot be market value of property and the circle rate can only be for the realization of stamp duty is not tenable. In view of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh and others Vs. Awas Vikas Parishad and others, reported in (2005) 2 Uttaranchal Decision Page 295, the circle rate is the market value of the property and the learned appellate court has not committed any error of law by fixing the rent on the basis of valuation report of the landlord. 12. So far as the contention that the appurtenant land could not have been included in the market value of premises in question, the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner was in the use and occupation of entire premises including the appurtenant land. 13. The learned appellate court has fixed the rent of the premises in question on the basis of valuation report submitted by the landlord as per formula prescribed in Section 21(8) of the Act. The valuation of the property was fixed on the basis of circle rate. The finding recorded by the appellate court is finding of fact and in writ jurisdiction the same cannot be re-appraised like an appeal. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgment and order passed by the appellate court. 14. The valuation of the property was fixed on the basis of circle rate. The finding recorded by the appellate court is finding of fact and in writ jurisdiction the same cannot be re-appraised like an appeal. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgment and order passed by the appellate court. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/landlord has informed to the court that parties have entered into compromise during the pendency of the writ petition and in view of the compromise it is agreed that the petitioner will hand over the possession of the premises to the landlord and he has already handed over the possession and the landlord will not claim the rent with effect from 1.7.2003 till 31.12.2004. The compromise has been filed along with Misc. Application No. 916 of 2005. 15. The writ petition is dismissed on its merit. The interim order dated 7-8-2003, passed by this court stands vacated. 16. However, in view of compromise application and the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents/landlord, the rent would be paid by the petitioner to the landlord/respondent till 30-6-2003. 17. Under the interim order dated 7-8-2003, the petitioner has deposited the amount of rent till 2001 in the Registry. The respondents/tenant would be entitled to withdraw the said amount, if the same has not already been withdrawn. Rest of the amount of rent shall be payable by the petitioner/tenant i.e. upto 30-6-2003. No order as to cost.