Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2900 (ALL)

U. P. Power Corp. Ltd. v. Ajeet Kumar Jain

2015-09-15

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for enhancement of rent.The landlord filed application under section 21(8) of the Act on 23.9.1999 which was allowed on 28.2.2001. The Rent Appeal filed against the order of enhancement of rent was dismissed on 16.10.2014, hence this petition. 3. Challenging the order passed by the court below for enhancement of rent , the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are two folds. The first contention is that both the courts below have relied upon the valuer report filed by the landlord and there was no other material to compute the rent of the premises in question. The second contention is that the building in question is more than 100 years old, while computing the market value of the building, the age of the building has not been taken into consideration . The rent could not have been computed by taking value of building in the year 2001. 4. Repelling both the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the respondent submits that valuer's report filed by the landlord was of a Government Approved Valuer, which is admissible in view of the law laiddown in Awad Raj Singh Vs. A.D.J. Gorakhpur and others 2003(3) A.R.C. 151. The valuer's report has not been disputed by the respondent before the court below.The computation has been done as per the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 21 of the Act, monthly rent can be enhanced to a sum equivalent to 1/12 of ten percent 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. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the orders of the court below it is apparent that the landlord has filed Valuer report which has been duly considered, in as much as the covered area of the building in question has been given and the age of the construction/building has been considered while computing the valuation of the building. The court below has given depreciation looking to the age of the building. The court below has given depreciation looking to the age of the building. The value of construction as suggested by the valuer is Rs.13 lac whereas the valuation of the construction after depreciation has been found to Rs.6,60,000/- which is perfectly justified. Looking to the covered area of the building in question after adding value of construction, the provisions of section 21(8) have been applied and the monthly rent of the building in question was computed on 28.2.2001. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rent has been enhanced excessively from Rs.375 to Rs.15,116/- cannot be accepted for the reason that the application for enhancement was moved in the year 1999 and the order was passed in year 2001. The value of the land and construction on the date of application have been taken into consideration. The report of the Government Approved Valuer has been relied upon for computation of rent. Further contention is that the report of the private valuer could not be made basis for passing the order,which cannot be accepted 8. No other infirmity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the orders impugned. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent informs that the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the enhanced rent with effect from 28.2.2001 by the order dated 21.7.2014 passed by this court in the earlier round of litigation between the parties. The order dated 21.7.2014 has not been complied with. The 50% of the enhanced rent with effect from 28.2.2001 to 19.8.2014 to the tune of Rs. 12,16,838/- has been deposited, whereas 50% of the enhanced monthly rent from the month of July onwards has not been deposited. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioner is liable to pay the entire arrears of rent after adjustment of the amount deposited by him pursuant to the order dated 21.7.2014, within a period of two months. 11. In so far as the deposited amount of rent pursuant to the order dated 21.7.2014 passed in writ petition no. 32117 of 2014 is concerned, the same shall be released on the application moved by the respondent within a period of one week.