JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Writ Petition has been filed by the tenant I.B.P. Company Limited, and is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31.12.1993 under Section 29-A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 fixing the rent of the tenanted accommodation at Rs. 19528.50P. Review against the said order was dismissed on 15.9.1994. Said order is also challenged through the writ petition.
2. For non-payment of the amount of rent fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer landlord M.L. Dudeja filed S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 1997 against the tenant I.B.P. Company Ltd. For eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The revision is directed against an interim order passed in the said suit.
3. In these cases on the persuasion of the Court learned Counsel for the parties, after consulting their clients, agreed in principle to settle the dispute through compromise. The matter was heard on 3 or 4 dates. With regard to some of the terms of compromise, parties agreed. However in respect of other terms of the compromise parties were at issue, hence, these points are to be decided through judgment of the Court. Accordingly this judgment is partly on the basis of compromise and partly it is decision of the Court. Such a course is an extension of the doctrine of court sponsored compromise embodied in Section 89 C.P.C.(introduced in the year 2000). Such procedural innovation is permissible while hearing writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
4. Parties agreed for fixation of monthly rent in between Rs. 10,000/- to 13,000/- (exact amount to be determined by the Court). Landlord agreed to withdraw the suit. Tenant was directed to pay tentative arrears of rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. Tenant handed over draft of Rs. 18 lacs and eight hundred seventy nine drawn in favour of the landlord to the learned Counsel for the landlord on 1.3.2006 in Court.
5. Today learned Counsel for both the parties have vehemently argued on the aspect of rent. According to the learned Counsel for the tenant even Rs. 10,000/- per month rent would be more than required and according to the learned Counsel for the landlord even Rs. 13,000/- per month rent would be on the lower side. Thus this question is to be decided by this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the landlord also states that landlord is entitled to the interest on the unpaid rent and the argument has further been elaborated by taking resort to the provisions of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. By virtue of the said sub-section if the suit for eviction of the tenant has been filed on the ground of default then the tenant can escape the liability of eviction in case he deposits the entire rent on the first date of hearing along with Cost of the suit and 9 per cent per annum interest on unpaid rent. Learned Counsel for the landlord has also stated that in the suit he had paid court fees of about Rs. 50,000/-. Learned Counsel for the tenant denies his liability to pay these amounts. This is also an area of dispute requiring adjudication by the Court.
7. Writ petition arises out of proceedings for fixation of rent under Section 29-A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The application was filed on 12.6.1990. Original agreement expired on 28.2.1989. Until February, 1989 agreed rent was Rs. 373.50 Paise. The application was registered as Case No. 6 of 1993 Lala Manohar Lal v. I.B.P. Company Ltd. Rent Control and eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate, Ist Kanpur decided the said application on 31.12.1993. He determined the market value of the land to be Rs. 23,43,441/- and corresponding rent of Rs. 19,528. 50 Paise per month was fixed Review was dismissed on 15.9.1994.
8. In several cases relating to determination of market value for enhancement of rent I find that undue reliance is placed upon Expert's report. Experts' reports are very relevant to determine the market value of the structure. However, market value of the land can not be left to be determined by the Experts. Experts may determine market value of the land on the basis of some evidence or criteria. The said evidence and criteria shall be brought on record before the Court concerned and the Court concerned shall determine the market value on the basis of the same. Market value is to be determined exactly on the same principle which are applicable for the said purpose in land acquisition cases. The best method of determining market value is the use of suitable examplers namely sale deeds of some adjoining property with similar advantages and disadvantages executed in recent past.
9. The landlord's Expert gave report regarding valuation of the property on the basis of rates fixed by Kanpur Development Authority ( K.D.A. In short) for selling its properties. Circle rates fixed under Stamp Act and Rules were produced before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in review proceedings. Through supplementary affidavit filed in this writ petition circle rates for the relevant periods have been mentioned.
10. In any case to determine the market value reliance can not be placed only and only on the circle rate. Rates fixed by the K.D.A. for sale of its properties is also not a safe criteria. Some mention was made in some affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord to the of rent fixed for adjoining properties. However, complete details supported by documentary evidence were not brought on record. In the absence of any other evidence circle rates and the rates fixed by the K.D.A. Can not be taken to be exact criteria. It has also to be kept in mind that for determining market value some guess work is bound to be part of the process through which market value is determined. In this case it is also important to note that in principle parties have agreed to end the litigation through compromise.
11. In view of the above, I think the interest of justice will best be served by fixing the rent at Rs. 11500/- per month. It is reiterated that I have not meticulously examined any particular criteria of determining the market value for arriving at the aforesaid figure.
12. As far as the demand of the landlord for interest and cost of the suit is concerned it is rejected in part and accepted in part. Tenant is not liable to pay any interest. However, tenant shall pay the court fees which has been paid by the landlord on the plaint of eviction suit.
13. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the above directions.
14. For non-payment of rent landlord also filed suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the tenant being S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 1997, which at present appears to be pending before A.D.J. Court No. 12 Kanpur Nagar. In the said suit tenant filed an application for stay of proceedings under Section 10 C.P.C. on the basis of the pendency of the above noted writ petition. The application was allowed on 10.01.2005. Against the said order the aforesaid Civil Revision No. 81 of 2005 was filed. The said revision is also disposed of with the direction that the landlord shall withdraw the said suit within two months from today. Similarly tenant is also directed to pay to the landlord the amount of Court fees paid by the landlord in the said suit within 2 months.
15. Since May, 2006 rent must regularly be paid at the rate of Rs. 11,500/- per month. As far as the rent from 1.3.89 till 30.4.2006 is concerned, the same shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 11000/- per month. The arrears of rent for this period, after adjusting the amount already paid (including Rs. 18 lacs and odd paid through draft on 1.3.2006) shall be paid within four months.