JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Satyendra Nath Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandan Sharma on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5. Under challenge in this petition is the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in proceedings under Section 21-A (5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the aforesaid order has determined the rent of the premises in dispute w.e.f. 1.12.1986 @10% per annum of the prevailing circle rate with the direction that henceforth as and when the circle rate is revised the rent would automatically stand enhanced accordingly. 3. The submission of Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application itself was not maintainable as the rent of the premises was admitted to be Rs. 2,500/- per month and as such the provisions of the Act were not applicable. Secondly, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not have fixed the rent without discussing the prevailing market value. 4. Sri Chandan Sharma to controvert the above argument has submitted that the rent of the premises at the time of filing of the above application was Rs. 100/- per month and as such the Act was applicable. Secondly, under Section 29-A (5) of the Act it is the prevailing market value which is material for fixation of rent and therefore the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not committed any error in directing for determining the annual rent at the market value of the property as per the prevailing circle rate. 5. I have perused the application which was filed under Section 29-A (5) of the Act. The respondents in paragraph 1 of the said application has stated that plot in dispute was let out @ Rs. 100/- per month. In paragraph 4 it has been averred that the petitioners failed to pay rent from 30th November 1986 till July 1993 @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. 6. A reading of the aforesaid two paragraphs together revels that the respondents admit that the plot was let out @ Rs. 100/- per month but w.e.f. December 1986 the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month at which rate a demand was raised by them. 7. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in its order dated 19.9.2008 has recorded that the respondents have demanded rent @ Rs. 100/- per month but w.e.f. December 1986 the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month at which rate a demand was raised by them. 7. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in its order dated 19.9.2008 has recorded that the respondents have demanded rent @ Rs. 2,500/- per month w.e.f. 1.12.1986 to 31.7.1993 whereas in the application it was demanded @ Rs. 3,066.66 paise per month but the agreed rent is Rs. 2,500/- per month. The averments made in the application and the finding that Rs. 2,500/- per month was agreed rent clearly establishes beyond any doubt that at the time of filing of the above application the rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month. 8. Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to the a building whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2,000/-. Accordingly, the Act was not applicable to the premises in dispute and the application was not maintainable. This apart, under Section 29-A (5) of the Act the annual rent has to be determined at the prevailing market value of the land for which purpose circle rate notified by the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 may be taken into consideration. 9. Thus, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was obliged to determine annual rental value of the land on the prevailing market value calculated by applying the circle rate. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not calculated the prevailing market value. He has not even specified the prevailing circle rate of the land for calculating its market value. Thus, without calculating the prevailing market value the annual rent payable could not have been determined. Moreover, the rent under Section 29-A (5) of the Act is required to be fixed only once on the basis of the prevailing market value. It does not give any authority to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to order for its revision in future and if any direction of the nature as to automatic revision of the rent fixed on every two years with the revision of the circle rate has been issued, the same is without jurisdiction. In view of the above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer manifestly erred in law in fixing the rent of the premises in dispute and not only exceeded its jurisdiction but acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. In view of the above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer manifestly erred in law in fixing the rent of the premises in dispute and not only exceeded its jurisdiction but acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 is quashed and the application filed under Section 29 -A (5) of the Act stands rejected. Petition allowed. No costs. —————