Reserved judgment THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3830 of 2001 Old Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42759 of 2000 State of U.P. through District Inspector of Schools Dehradun. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Additional District Judge, Dehradun. 2. The Addl. District Magistrate (Admn.) Dehradun. 3. Smt. Basanti Juyal, W/O Late V.D.Juyal R/O 37 Curzon Road, Dehradun. ... Respondents. Sri Nand Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-State. Sri D.C.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the private respondents. no. 3. Date: May 18, 2006. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) By means of this writ petition, the appellant-State has challenged the order dated 21.3.1996 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No. 2) as well as judgment and order dated 29-9-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge Dehradun, whereby the appeal of the State was partly allowed and monthly rent of the building in suit was fixed to Rs. 12,680/- w.e.f. 21.6.1993 instead of Rs. 13,650- and the order, dated 16.5.2000 whereby the respondent no.1 has rejected the review petition filed by the State. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the application moved by the landlady-respondent no.3 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R.C. & E.O.) for enhancement of rent of the building in dispute. Ultimately, the R.C. & E.O.-respondent no.2 vide his judgment and order dated 21.3.1996 enhanced the rent from the 400/- per month to Rs. 13,650/- per month under the provisions of Section 21(8) of the U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short the Act), It is apparent on the face of record that there was a calculation mistake in the valuer’s report filed by the landlady, 2 which was accepted in to-to by the Additional District Magistrate/R.C. & E.O. and the rent was enhanced accordingly. Relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no.3 is the landlady of the property situate at 37 Curzon Road Dehradun. This building was let out to the District Inspector of School at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- since long back. The landlady on 21.6.1993 moved an application under the provisions of Section 21(8) of the Act for enhancement of rent with the averment that the building in question consists of total area of 1105.37 sq. mt. out of which area of 284.83 sq.mt. is covered and remaining area is open space. It was stated that the circle rate of the land has considerably gone up @ Rs. 1000/- per sq.mt. and as per relevant provisions of the Act, the rent of the building ought to have been Rs. 13,105-83 per month, prayer was made to enhance the rate of rent. The O.P.-appellant despite service of notice and having been represented by the District Government Counsel did not file its written statement to resist the proceedings, though sufficient opportunity to file the same was availed in this regard. Hence, the application was heard ex-parte by the R.C. & E.O., who after considering the affidavit and documents filed by the landlady, enhanced the rent of the disputed building to Rs. 13,650/- per month vide judgment and order dated 21.3.1996. It may be noted that the landlady had made a prayer to fix the rent @ Rs. 13,105-83 per month in her application. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the State preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge Dehradun, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 190 of 1998. After hearing both the parties, the learned Appellate Court observed that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the State to file its written statement/objection to resist the application moved by the landlady for enhancement of rent. It was also observed that the officers of the concerned department never took it seriously to 3 contest the case. It was submitted before the appellate court that the court below did not workout the market value of the property in accordance with the prescribed norms. The market value of the land @ Rs. 100/- sq.mt. was also challenged. However, at the time of argument it was conceded that the rate of land was rightly ascertained to be Rs. 1000/- per sq.mt. The appellate court after re- appreciating the entire evidence on record, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the cost of land comes to Rs. 11,07,370/- costs of construction comes Rs. 7,98,000/- depreciation of cost for 48 years @ 48% comes to Rs. 3,83,040/- thereby the present value of the construction was worked out Rs. 4,14,960/-. The total market value of the property was thus worked out (11,07,370/- + Rs. 4,14,960/-) Rs. 15,22,330/- and 10% thereof comes to Rs. 1,52,233/- and as per provision of Section 21(8) of the Act the monthly rent of the premises in suit, i.e. 1/12th of 10% of the market value, came to Rs. 12,686-08, which was rounded to Rs. 12,680/- per month. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 12,680/- w.e.f. 21.6.1993 and the order under appeal was modified to that extent. The impugned judgment and orders have been assailed by the petitioner-State mainly on the ground that the courts below has erred in appreciating the evidence in not taking into consideration the valuer’s report filed by the petitioner and the landlady. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The contention of the petitioner that the learned appellate court has erred in not considering the valuers’ report is not tenable. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Additional District judge goes to show that he has fully considered the reports of the valuers filed on record. It was open to the appellate court to examine the correctness of the valuers’ report. 4 It may be noted here that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of Appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error committed by the appellate court, which may lead to any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Moreover, as per the provisions of Act, the monthly rent has been worked out by the learned Appellate Court as detailed above. It was lastly argued that the impugned order is not tenable in view of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, which came into force w.e.f. 26.9.1994. It has been pointed that that where the rent of premises exceeds Rs. 2,000/- per month, the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable. The learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that the application by the landlady was moved on 21-6-1993 and that the Act No. 5 of 1995 came into force from 26.9-1994. The learned Standing Counsel could not show any authority to indicate that there was any bar to consider the provisions of Section 21(8) on 21.6.1993 when the application for enhancement was moved by the landlady, rather he has conceded that the appeal is continuation of trial or proceeding. In such circumstances, the ground taken by the State regarding bar of provisions of Section 21(8) of the Act cannot be accepted. having considered the entire material before me, I find no infirmity or manifest error of law in the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court in the present petition, which is devoid of merit and must fail. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP