JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. These two writ petitions, namely. Writ Petition Nos. 27783 of 2000 and 27784 of 2000 have been filed by petitioner-tenant, the State of U. P. challenging the common orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provision of Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Since both the writ petitions raise common question of facts and law, thus being disposed of by this common judgment together.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-State of U. P. Is admittedly the tenant of the accommodation in question. Respondent No. 1, Har Narain Tandon is the owner and landlord of the aforesaid accommodation in question, in which the office of Superintendent of Police (Regional), Special Branch, Intelligence Department at U. P., Bareilly was situated. Initially the rent payable by the petitioner was Rs. 192 per month. In the year 1979, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), for the enhancement of rent from Rs. 192 per month to Rs. 833 per month. The aforesaid application was registered as Rent Control Case No. 142 of 1981. The matter was contested by the petitioner and after contest, by an order dated 3.12.1982, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 600 per month.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner tenant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bareilly as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1983. The appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10.1.1986 and the order dated 3.12.1982 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer was upheld. The order dated 3.12.1982, according to the petitioner-tenant, merged into the order of District Judge dated 10.1.1986.
4. It is submitted that the respondent-landlord again in the year 1988 filed an application under Section 21 (8) of the Act for the enhancement of rent from Rs. 600 to Rs. 9,802.50 per month, which was registered as Rent Control Case No. 55 of 1988, The respondent-landlord has also filed a report of an authorised valuer, namely, Sri O. K. Haruray along with the aforesaid application with regard to the market value of the accommodation in question. The landlord also stated in his application, referred to above, that according to the circle rate, the market value of the building in the locality is between Rs. 1,000 per sq. metre to Rs. 1,200 per sq. metre. He further stated that since the building in question is situated in Civil Lines, which is the heart of the town and the petitioner-tenant has already covered the area of 3,010 sq. ft., besides open lawn and other amenities, the market value according to the valuer report is Rs. 11,76,300 taking total area of the aforesaid building as 9099 sq. ft., which is less than the circle rate. The petitioner-tenant filed his objection, Including the order 3.12.1982 by which the enhancement of rent was finalised as well as the order dated 10.1.1986 passed by the appellate authority, stating therein that no application for enhancement can be filed or in any case cannot be filed within five years from 1986. The provision of Section 21 (8) of the Act. which is relevant for the purposes of the present controversy, is reproduced below :
"21 (8). Nothing in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom Clause (ii) or Clause (iv) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) is applicable :
Provided that in the case of such a building, the District Magistrate may. on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefor to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent 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 :
Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement."
5. The petitioner-tenant raised further objection on the maintainability of the application filed by the landlord. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 4.9.1992 rejected the application filed by the landlord stating that the application is not maintainable because the same was filed within five years from 1986. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord preferred an appeal against the order dated 4.9.1992, wherein the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that since five years have not passed after passing of the order in the year 1986, therefore, this application is not maintainable, was assailed on the ground that a perusal of Section 21 (8) proviso would demonstrate that bar of five years is applicable to the situation of the last enhancement, but in the present case, the last enhancement was made in the year 1983 and not in the year 1986 because in the year 1986, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed. So far as the purpose of maintainability of the second application is concerned, it is the last enhancement that has to be taken into consideration in the year 1982 and, therefore, the present application, which has been termed as second application in the year 1988, is well within time.
6. On the question of the market value of the building in question, two valuer reports were on record before the appellate authority, one filed by the respondent-landlord, according to which the market value of the building is assessed to Rs. 11,76,300 and according to the report of the valuer submitted by the petitioner-tenant, the market value comes to Rs. 3,64,494.56. The value report submitted by the tenant has not been relied upon by the appellate authority on the ground that the circle rate issued by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue). Bareilly dated 13.6.1988, the rent in the Civil Lines area of Bareilly, is valued between Rs, 1,000 to Rs. 1,200 per sq. metre and according to the value report submitted by the petitioner-tenant, the value of the building has been assessed at only Rs. 915 per sq. metre. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer without there being any other material on record has valued the rent and has stated that the market value of the building in question should not exceed to Rs. 600 per sq. yard and according to that, the value of the building comes to Rs. 5.46,000. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 5.5.1999, enhanced the rent to Rs. 5,085 per month excluding local taxes w.e.f. 1.8.1988.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord preferred an appeal, which has remanded back the matter after setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The matter has been decided by the appellate authority and in between, another application was filed by the landlord for enhancement of the rent in the year 1993. The appellate authority has held that since the application of 1988 is still pending, therefore, the application filed in the year 1993 for further enhancement of rent cannot be considered at this stage. The appellate authority has also held that the value report submitted by Sri V. N. Khanna will not be read at this stage and so is the affidavit filed by Sri V. N. Khanna on the conclusion arrived at by the materials on record is that since the report submitted by the respondent-landlord, i.e., of Sri Yogendra Mohan Saxena is dated 26.8.1988 and Sri Saxena has also filed his affidavit dated 22.12.1998 and this report, which is supported by an affidavit, which was filed after about 10 years, possibly cannot, support the report, whereas the report of Sri O. K. Haruray dated 31.10.1988, which is also supported by an affidavit, which was filed in the year 1988 and according to the aforesaid report, the value of the building comes to Rs. 11,76,300. The appellate authority further held that according to the value report submitted by the petitioner-tenant, the market value of the building in question comes to Rs. 3 lacs and odd, whereas the Rent Control and Eviction Officer itself arrived at the conclusion of the market value of the land in this area comes to Rs. 5 lacs and odd. In this view of the matter, the report submitted by the landlord with regard to the market value being Rs. 11,76,300 has been accepted and 1/12 of the 10 per cent comes about to Rs. 9,802 which is the rent assessed by the appellate authority on assessment, as stated above, vide its order dated 1.4.2002, which is under challenge by means of the present writ petition.
8. Learned standing counsel on behalf of the petitioner-tenant has stated that the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in rejecting the value report only on the ground that the affidavit was filed after 10 years and at the original stage since there was no affidavit and, therefore, the report should be rejected, is not correct in law, I have gone through the order passed by the appellate authority and for the reasons stated above, in my opinion, the view taken by ihe appellate authority does not warrant any interference, particularly in view of the fact that according to the certificate issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Bareilly, the value of the land has been certified to be between 1,000 to 1,200 per sq. metre, whereas according to the value report relied upon by the appellate authority, it has been shown only Rs. 915 per sq. metre. Further the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in its earlier order, which has been subsequently set aside by the appellate authority when the matter was remanded back, the value of the building was arrived at by the authority to be 5 lacs and odd and for this, the view taken by the appellate authority does not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. The order dated 1.4.2000 passed by the appellate authority is upheld. The interim order, if any, stands vacated
10. In view of what has been stated above, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.