JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the owners and landlord of a double storied building situate in Mohalla Meena Bazar, Gorakhpur. The petitioner being a department of the State of U. P., was in occupation of the building in question, as a tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 268.75 p. It was alleged that the building in question is a double storied building having big halls and was spacious and contained all the amenities. The respondent filed an application under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. praying that they are entitled to an enhancement of the monthly rent to the extent of l/12th of 10% of the market value of the building under the tenancy of the petitioner. In support of their application, the respondent submitted a detailed valuation report with regard to the market value of the building in question. This valuer was duly approved by the Central Government. This report of the valuer was duly submitted by an affidavit of the valuer. In this report the market value of the building was assessed at Rs. 2,33,850 as on 31.10.1979. On the basis of this valuation report, the respondents prayed that a sum of Rs. 1,965.42 p. per month be enhanced as the monthly rent, which Is equivalent to l/12th of 10% of the market value of the building in question.
2. The petitioner opposed the application. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 19.2.1982 fixed the rent at Rs. 403.12 p. per month, against which, the landlord filed an appeal, which was allowed by an order dated 7.8.1982 and the matter was remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide fresh the enhancement of the rent on the basis of the market value of the building in question. Pursuant to the remand, the petitioner filed a report prepared by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. in which the rent was justified at Rs. 455 per month. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 31,1.1986 accepted the report of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. and fixed the rent at Rs. 455 per month w.e.f. 1.3.1980.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31.1.1986, the respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed by an order dated 31.5.1986 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,965.49 p. per month w.e.f. 1.3.1980.
4. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court dated 31.5.1986, the tenant has filed the present writ petition.
5. Heard Sri V. N. Agrawal and Sri. Mayank Saksena, the learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sankatha Rai, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri K. P. S. Yadav, the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer accepted the valuation report of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. on the sole ground that the said report was given by a department of 'the Government. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer gave no finding as to why the valuation report submitted by the respondents was incorrect. The appellate court while enhancing the rent held that the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. in its report did not take into consideration the value of the land and, therefore, the said report was incorrect. On the other hand the appellate court found' that the valuation report submitted by the respondents took into consideration the value of the land and other criteria for assessing the market value of the building and, therefore, accepted the valuation report submitted by the respondents.
7. In my view, the findings given by the appellate court are the findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in a writ jurisdiction. Further, I find that the valuation report of the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. submitted by the petitioner was not supported by the affidavit of the valuer and, therefore, no reliance could be taken into consideration on this valuation report. In State of U. P. and Anr. v. 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., 1983 ARC 752, a Division Bench of this Court held that the valuation report cannot be read in evidence, if the valuer has not filed his own affidavit proving the contents of his report.
8. Admittedly, in the present case, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. did not file his affidavit in support of the report and, therefore, the said report was inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the valuation report submitted by the respondents was duly supported by the affidavit of the valuer. Since no other evidence was filed by the petitioner, the appellate court was justified in accepting the valuation report submitted by the respondents.
9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed with costs.