Allahabad High Court
Senior Marketing Inspector, And Others vs Smt. Meena Dixit And Others on 22 July, 2010
Author: Devendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Devendra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42351 of 2010 Petitioner :- Senior Marketing Inspector, And Others Respondent :- Smt. Meena Dixit And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Addl Chief Standing Couns Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 15.3.2007 and 7.11.2009 by which both the courts below have allowed the landlord's application under section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) enhancing the rent of the disputed accommodation.
It appears that the petitioners are tenants of the disputed accommodation since long at the rate of Rs.110/- per month. The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 for enhancement of the rent to Rs.37,500/- per month. After the parties had led their evidence, the Rent Controller after examining the evidence on record found that the market value was Rs.20,91500/- and after applying the provision, fixed rent at Rs.17,429/- per month. The consequential revision has also been dismissed.
The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that since it was lease land, the market rate was less than that relied by the courts below and in support thereof he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of F.S. Gandhi Vs.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Allahabad [(19900 3 SCC 624].
So far as the decision in Gandhi's case (Supra) is concerned, it involved interpretation of certain provision of Wealth Tax Act 1957 and the expression used therein and therefore, would not be applicable to the present case. In any case, it is not denied by the petitioners that they did not even file a copy of the alleged lease deed or led any evidence to show what was the market value according to them. The courts below have relied upon the evidence led by the respondent-landlord and also the proved valuers report in arriving at the market value. Therefore , the argument cannot be accepted.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Order Date :- 22.7.2010 AU