HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 3343 of 2001 (M/S) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. District Judge Nainital and another Approved for reporting. Not approved for reporting Date of decision 08.09.2006 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3343 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 23209/1998) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Through Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Nainital. ... Petitioner Vs 1. District Judge, Nainital. 2. Sri R.B. Mathur S/o Sri Bhagwati Prasad, R/o 129 Civil Lines, Bareilly. ... Respondents Mr. A.N. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Date: 08 Septermber, 2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.02.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 District Judge, Nainital in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1997 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.) 3. Briefly stated the petitioner is a tenant of premises No. 37 Heera Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the said premises, has filed an application under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 23.10.1991 praying for the enhancement of monthly rent in respect of the said premises No. 37 Heera Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital. Respondent No. 2 (owner), along with the application under Section 21(8) of the Act, has filed the valuation report to the following effect: “v- Hkou dk Hkw&{ks=Qy&5985 oxZ QqV & 556-2 oxZ ehVj] c- Hkou dk fIyaFk ,fj;k&2273-75 oxZQqV & 211-315 oxZ ehVj] Hkw[k.M ds ewY;kadu ds lEcU/k esa mUgksaus ik;k fd lu~ 1990 esa lfdZy jsV bl {ks= esa eqo0 600@& :0 izfr oxZehVj gS vkSj pwafd njsa c<+ jgh gSa vkSj LFkkuh; tkWp ij orZeku ewY; eqo0 1000@& :0 izfr oxZehVj gS] vr% izLrqr ekeys esa eqo0 800@& :i;k izfr oxZehVj dh nj ls Hkwfe dk ewY; eqo0 4]44]960@&:0 fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k A fuekZ.k ds lEcU/k esa eq[; vfHk;Urk ds i= dk lUnHkZ nsrs gq, eqo0 2123@& :0 izfr oxZehVj dh nj fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ FkhA pwWfd Hkou yxHkx 20 o’kZ izkphu gS] vr% voewY;u 0-6668 % djrs gq, fuekZ.k ewY;kadu eqo0 2]99]140-98@& :0 fd;k x;kA” 4. According to the petitioner (tenant), the valuation is as under: “fdjk;snkj us Hkh vf/k’kklh vfHk;Urk fuekZ.k [k.M f}rh;] gY}kuh ls bl ifjlj dk ewY;kadu eaxok;k] tks fd dkxt la[;k 20@2 20@3 gS] mlds vuqlkj Hkou dh orZeku dher eq0 7]00]000@& :0 vkrh gS] ijUrq ewY; esa gzkl ?kVkus ij ewY; fu/kkZj.k yxHkx 3-50 yk[k gksrk gSA edkunkj us flQZ fuekZ.k ds lEc/k esa ;g ewY;kadu Lohdkj fd;k] ijUrq Hkwfe ds ewY; dks Hkh izFkdr;k tksM+us dk Hkh vuqjks/k fd;kA” 5. The Additional District Magistrate, vide his order dated 28.04.1997. enhanced the rent from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 3265/- per month. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Addl. District Magistrate dated 28.04.1997, the petitioner (tenant) went in appeal under Section 22 of the Act before respondent No. 1 District Judge, Nainital, which was registered as R.C.A. No. 2 of 1997. Respondent No. 2 (owner) also filed his cross- objection stating that as the Addl. District Magistrate has erred in calculating the value of the land, the monthly rent should be fixed at Rs. 6,200/-. 7. The District Judge, Nainital, vide order dated 10.02.1998, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed the cross-objection filed by respondent No. 2 and fixed the monthly rent at Rs. 4,800/- . 8. The relevant findings recorded by the District Judge in his order dated 10.02.1998 are quoted below: “v- fdjk;snkjh esa fuekZ.k dk /kjkry o vU; vuqyXu Hkwfe dk leLr {ks=Qy 556-2 oxZ ehVj dk ewY; eqo0 500@& :0 izfr oxZehVj dh nj ls & eq0 2]78]100-00 :0 c- fIyaFk ,fj;k 211-315 oxZehVj ij gq, fuekZ.k dk ewY; eqo0 2123@& :0 izfr oxZ ehVj dh nj ls eqo0 4]48]621-74 :0 ijUrq fuekZ.k 20 o"kZ izkphu gksus ds dkj.k ewY; esa gzkl djrs gq, vkosnu i= dh frfFk ij ewY;kadu eqo0 448621-74 x -6668 = eqo0 2]99]140-98 :0 eqo0 5]77]240-98 :0 bl izdkj fdjk;s ij nh xbZ lEifRr dk ewY;kadu eqo0 5-77 yk[k :i;k gksrk gS vkSj /kkjk 21¼8½ 'kgjh Hkou vf/kfu;e esa dh xbZ O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj lEifRr ds ewY;kadu eqo0 5-77 yk[k ds 10% ;kfu 57]700@& :0 ds 1@12 = eqo0 4]808-33@& ;k :0 4800@& ij ekfld fdj;k r; fd;k tkuk gSA bl izdkj Hkou dk ekfld fdjk;k eqo0 4808-33@& :0 ¼;k :0 4800@&½ gksrk gS vkSj fdjk;k] vkosnu&i= dh frfFk ds ckn igyh rkjh[k vFkkZr fnukad 01-12-1991 ls fu/kkZfjr gksuk pkfg,A fo}ku vij ftykf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ o vkns’k tks fd blds foijhr fn;k x;k gS] og ml lhek rd vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA rn~uqlkj] vkns’k izR;kFkhZ dh dzkl vihy eatwj djrs gq, vij ftykf/kdkjh @ izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkou @ edku la[;k 37 ghjkuxj] gY}kuh ds ckjs esa fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k dk vkns’k la’kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA Hkou dk ewY;kadu eqo0 5-77 yk[k :i;k fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, /kkjk 21¼8½ 'kgjh Hkou vf/kfu;e ds varxZr ekfld fdjk;k eqo0 4800@& :0 fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS] tks fd fnukad 1-12-1991 ls fdjk;snkj }kjk edkunkj dks n; gksxkA vihykFkhZ dh vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA” 9. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.02.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Nainital, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 10. In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. VIIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others reported in 1992 (1) ARC 265, it has been held in para 5 as under: “5. I have carefully considered both the arguments on the basis of the material on record. The learned counsel was not correct in stating that while determining the market value of the building, the value of the land underneath should be excluded. The value of the entire area of land under tenancy has to be determined first and thereafter the value of the building let out in the shape of super-structure. This view is supported by the decision in Central Bank of India v. IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi and others, 1989 (1) ARC 340 and Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Bareilly and others v. Vth Addition District Judge, Bareilly, 1989 (2) ARC 14. The Market value of the land and the building has been assessed on relevant material and those findings are not arbitrary or perverse.” 11. Considering the above legal position, the findings recorded by the appellate court and the material available on record, I am of the view that the market value of the land and the building has been assessed on relevant material and those findings cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 12. In this view of the matter, no interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is required in the matter. 13. The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (Rajesh Tandon, J.)