1. Heard Sri B.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.B. Singh, Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai allowing appeal of respondents-tenants partially and determining the rent of accommodation in question at the rate of Rs. 1012.50 per month and modifying Trial Court's order dated 20.10.2001 accordingly.
3. The respondents are admittedly occupying the premises in dispute and running a Primary School thereat. The petitioners-landlords filed an application dated 02.11.1994 before Prescribed Authority for determining rent of premises in dispute under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"). The landlords contended that current market value of property is about Rs. 3,40,000/- and, therefore, the appropriate rent accordingly to the bare minimum market value would be about Rs. 2800/- and onwards but considering the location of property and other facilities its monthly rent would come to Rs. 4425/-. The application was contested by respondents-tenants. The petitioners-landlords supported their contention regarding market value of property by referring to a sale deed dated 24.11.1993 of a nearby building and on the basis thereof claimed that market value of the property would not be below than Rs. 3571.43 per sq. meter.
4. The respondents-tenants however relied on the circle rate determined by District Magistrate for the area in question according to which the value of property would be between Rs. 600-800 per sq. meter.
5. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") vide judgment dated 20.10.2001 determined the market value of property as Rs. 286232/- and accordingly fixed standard rent as Rs. 2385/- per month, which he directed the tenants to pay w.e.f. 02.11.1994, i.e., from the date of filing of application but the same has been modified to Rs. 1012.50 per month by Appellate Court vide judgement dated 07.10.2002 impugned in this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Appellate Court has solely relied on the circle rate fixed by District Magistrate and not the present rate of nearby area and on purely conjectures and surmises passed the impugned. He submitted that the circle rate cannot be the sole basis for determining market value of property.
7. On behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3, however, it is contended that Appellate Court having relied on circle rate has not committed any error and it cannot be said that determination of rent following circle rate is illegal or arbitrary.
8. For determining the rent under Section 21(8) of Act, 1972 there is no hard and fast rule laying down any particular procedure or method in which the rent can be determined. The proviso to Section 21 sub-section 8 only talks of the market value of building under tenancy and a sum equivalent to 1/12 of 10% of market value shall constitute the appropriate rent payable by tenant under aforesaid provision. The term market value has not been defined in aforesaid act nor any procedure for its determination has been prescribed under the Rules framed under Act, 1972.
9. In Mahabir Prasad Shantuka Vs. Collector, 1987 ALR 308 this Court has observed that the term market value means that the willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the land and the development activities which may be going on in the vicinity and the potentiality of the land and other relevant factors. Circle rate fixed by Collector under Rule 341 of U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 are guidelines for the purpose of realisation of stamp duty in the event of sale of land of a particular area. It cannot determine the value of land conclusively.
10. In Kaka Singh Vs. Additional Collector, Bulandshahr, 1986 ALJ 49 a Division Bench of this Court said that Rule 341 is only for the limited purpose of providing guideline to determine the market value. It is not conclusive. The value of land has to be determined after taking into consideration various factors. No hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor but now some of the guidelines have been laid down U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 but this is also indicative, constitute relevant factors, but not conclusive. One of the relevant factor can be an exemplar of a similar property sold in that particular area on near relevant date when the matter came up for consideration before competent authority, i.e., the date of submission of application. It cannot be doubted that ascertainment of market value involves a little subjective satisfaction and a kind of guesswork. The authority concern, however, would have to take into consideration the locality where the property situate, its commercial value, potential value and other circumstances.
11. In State of U.P. And others Vs. VIIth Additional District Judge and others, AIR 1993 SC 1232 the Court observed that the value of two similar buildings or structures standing on similar parcel of land may differ substantially on account of locational advantage of the site in question. The difference of valuation of land because of such locational advantage creeps into the ultimate valuation of the building or structure making one building more valuable than the other although from the structural point of view, both the buildings are identical.
12. The above observations goes to show that when almost adjoining buildings having similar structures can have different value, to apply the circle rate applicable to entire locality cannot properly determine the market value of building in question. In this particular case the RCEO has followed and preferred an exemplar of a building in vicinity and of a recent duration when application was filed by petitioners. In my view the method adopted by RCEO is more apt and appropriate in this particular case than that followed by Appellate Court who has simply relied on the circle rate treating it to be conclusive. I find support in taking the above view from this Court's decision in Deepak Kumar Tyagi and others Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1994(1) ARC 510; State of U.P. and others Vs. IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge and others, 2002(2) ARC 437; and, State of U.P. And another Vs. Ashok Kumar Tayal and others, 2010 All.C.J. 892.
13. In view of above discussions, the appellate order cannot sustain. The writ petition is allowed. The appellate order dated 07.10.2002 is hereby set aside and the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer is restored. No costs.
Order Date :- 04.09.2012 AK