WPMS No. 5303 of 2001 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Arvind Vashisht, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Matloob, the learned counsel holding the brief of Shri B.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is the tenant and is running an educational institution on the 1st floor at 21/1 Paltan Bazar, Dehradun. The said accommodation was allotted to the petitioner on 18th February, 1963 on rent @ Rs.40/- p.m. Upon enforcement of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 50/- p.m. In July, 1999, the landlord/opposite party respondent No.3 filed an application u/S 21 (8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act seeking enhancement of the rent from Rs.50/- p.m. to Rs. 1,417/- p.m. on the basis of the market value of the accommodation. The landlord fixed the market value to Rs.1,70,000/-. The aforesaid application was resisted by the petitioner contending that the market value assessed by the landlord was excessive and that the rent that was paid was agreed between the parties which could not be enhanced u/S 21 (8) of the Act. It was further alleged that the accommodation is an old construction and is located inside a narrow lane and, therefore, the value which is much less than assessed by the landlord. The Additional District Magistrate, after considering the material evidence on record, concluded that the market value of the accommodation was Rs.1,21,915/- and, consequently, held that the monthly rent to be paid by the petitioner would be Rs.1,015/- p.m. The Additional District Magistrate concluded that the valuation of the building was Rs.36,540/- and that the construction of the building was about Rs.100/- per square feet. The Authority further concluded that the valuation of the land would be approximately Rs.85,000/-. Against the said order, the landlord as well as the petitioner filed appeals which were clubbed together and were decided by an order dated 7th February, 1995. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the landlord and partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner reducing the rent from Rs.1015/- to Rs. 930/- p.m. The Appellate authority reduced the valuation of the land to Rs.68,300/- and increased the valuation of the building to Rs.43,848/- but concluded that the rent was liable to be reduced to Rs.935/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question was a lease land and consequently the rent should be valued on the basis of the lease rent, multiplied by 10th times which could be added to the cost of the building. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below committed an error in adding the value of the land. Section 21 (8) of the Act provides that the monthly rent can be enhanced to a sum equivalent to 1/12 of 10% of the market value of the building under tenancy. In the opinion of the Court, the building would also include the cost of the land and, consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the addition of the cost of the land while assessing the market value of the building was rightly judged and adjudicated by the Court below. The Court does not find any error in the order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 16.12.2011 Shiv