Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1821 (ALL)

Om Prakash Agarwal v. State of U. P.

2013-07-10

MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. – Heard Sri Daya Shanker Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri S. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 6.6.2000 passed by Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur in Case No.18 of 1999 and the judgment and order dated 24.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.10) Sitapur in Rent Control Appeal No.6 of 2000. 2. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, are that the petitioners moved an application on 13.11.1997 before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 (the Act) for enhancement of rent of the houses in question. It was alleged by the petitioners that they purchased the house in question on 18.3.1970 by means of a registered sale deed dated 18.3.1970 in which the respondents no.2 and 3 were tenants @ Rs.100/- per month. It was further alleged that the respondents no.2 and 3 were tenants in the disputed premises since before the purchase of the house by the petitioners and they have been using the premises as Police Outpost-Thomsanganj, Sitapur. 3. The petitioners alleged that the entire area of the house was more than 6681 square ft. and circle rate of the area was Rs.350 per square ft.. In these circumstances, the monthly rent of the premises was much less than the market value. They further alleged that as per report of the Government valuer, the market value of the premises was Rs. 24,79,700/-. On the basis of the report of the Valuer, they claimed that the monthly rent should be fixed as Rs.20,664/-. The respondents no.2 and 3 admitted in their written statement that they were tenants in the disputed premises and also admitted that rate of rent was Rs.100/- per month, but stated that the condition of the premises was very poor as the petitioners did not carry out the necessary repairs etc. for the last several years. It was further alleged that market value as shown by the petitioners was much higher than the actual market value. On the basis of the aforementioned fact that the building was in very poor condition, the respondent nos.2 and 3 prayed that the monthly rent should not be enhanced. 4. for the last several years. It was further alleged that market value as shown by the petitioners was much higher than the actual market value. On the basis of the aforementioned fact that the building was in very poor condition, the respondent nos.2 and 3 prayed that the monthly rent should not be enhanced. 4. Both the parties led evidence before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur, who after considering the material on record, rejected the report of the Valuer, but enhanced the monthly rent from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- per month. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur, petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal No.6 of 2000 before the District Judge, Sitapur which was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, 10th for hearing and disposal, who after considering the material on record, partly allowed the appeal and further enhanced the rent from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/- per month. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the instant writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that both the courts below have not considered the report of the Government approved valuer, according to which, the market value of the house was more than Rs.24 lacs and even the circle rate of the area at that time was Rs.350/- per square ft, but the report of the valuer was not considered on technical grounds. 8. The learned courts below also did not consider that house in question which was built on an area of 6681.32 square ft and four rooms thereof were in occupation of the respondents no.2 and 3. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted that the spot inspection was made by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur without informing him and in his absence. The rate of rent of the premises was only Rs.100/- per month and, as such, it was not possible for the petitioners to carry out the necessary white washing and repairs. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that both courts below disbelieved the report of the Government approved valuer merely on technical grounds without assigning any valid reason as to why the report of the valuer was not being considered. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that both courts below disbelieved the report of the Government approved valuer merely on technical grounds without assigning any valid reason as to why the report of the valuer was not being considered. 11. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur as well as the appellate authority both have only marginally increased the rent without assigning any reason as to why the rent was increased only marginally. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a case reported in 1992 ALR 981 Smt. Padma Tandon and District Judge, Allahabad and others in which it has been held that the market value of the property has to be assessed irrespective of consideration as to what value the willing purchaser would offer. 13. From the perusal of the impugned orders passed by both the courts below, it appears that the prayer of the petitioners for enhancement of the rent was refused only on the ground that the premises under tenancy of the respondents no.2 and 3 was not in good condition. However, it was not disputed that the respondent nos.2 and 3 had been using the said premises for the purpose of running Police Outpost. 14. The premises in question was purchased by the petitioners in the year 1970 and respondent nos.2 and 3 were tenants since before the date of purchase and, as such, in the year 1997 when the petitioners applied for enhancement of rent, the market value of the property must have been considerably increased. The authorities below without taking into account the market value of the premises, enhanced the rent only marginally without assigning any valid grounds as to why monthly rent was only marginally increased. 15. The report of the Government Approved Valuer is on record of the court below in which the valuer has given the entire details of the building and has assessed the market value of the premises. There was no material on record to controvert the report of the valuer except the spot inspection memo prepared by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur himself after visiting the site and that too in the absence of the petitioners. The appellate authority also did not consider that house having four rooms would fetch much more rent if let out to a private person. 16. The appellate authority also did not consider that house having four rooms would fetch much more rent if let out to a private person. 16. The appellate authority has observed in his judgment that after 30 years of purchase of premises by the petitioners, the market value of the house must have increased, but even then the monthly rent was increased only twice the actual rent and no valid reasons have been given for discarding the report of the Government approved valuer. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, both the impugned orders dated 24.9.2003 and 6.6.2000 passed by appellate authority as well as Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur are liable to be set aside and consequently the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 18. The writ petition is allowed and both the aforesaid impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions. 19. Le the record be transmitted to the court concerned immediately. 20. Since the matter is very old, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Sitapur is expected to expedite the disposal of the application of the petitioners and will try to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.