STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 16-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 
(KULDIP SINGH AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972: Sections 3(i) and 21(8)-Proviso. 
Rent-Enhancement of-Assessme/11 of market value of Building for 
detennination of rent-Held building includes the structure including the land 
underneath it-Value of land should be added to the value of structure while 
determining the value of building. 
The landlord of a building, which was let out to the Sales Tax 
Department of the Govenment of Uttar Pradesh, filed an application for 
enhancement of rent. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer enhanced the 
rent which was determined by assessing the market value of the building 
including the value of super-structure as well as the value of land under· 
neath it. The determination made by the Rent Control Officer was af-
firmed by the Appellate Authority and also by the High Court. In appeal 
to this Court it was conteded for the appellant that the expression 
'building' under Section 3(i) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 incldues only the super·structure 
and not the land underneath it. For the respondent-landlord it was con-
tended that the land under the super-structure also comes within the 
expression 'building' itself. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The definition of'building' under Sections 3(i) clearly shows 
G that the building means the roofed structure including the land underneath 
the said structure. In the definition there is no express exclusion of the value 
of the land on which the building stands. In the absence of such express 
exclusion, the land being intrinsically inseparable from the building stand· 
ing thereon, the value of the land and the value of the structure or building 
H should be taken into consideration. (603 H, 604 A·CJ 
600 
STATE OF U.P. v. ADDL. DJSTT. JUDGE [RAY, J.] 
601 
Inclusive part of the definition only relates to the land appurtenant A 
to such building and not to the land underneath the roof structure. The 
land on which the building stands together with 'the building or structure 
constitute one composite unit. The value of two similar buildings or 
structure standing on similar parcel of land may differ substantially on 
account of locational advantage of the site in question. The difference of B 
valuation of land because of such locational advantage creeps into the 
unltimate valuation of the building or structure making one building more 
valuable than the other although from the structural point of view, both 
the buildings are identical. Therefore, the determination of valuation of 
the building by taking into consideration the value of the land in addition 
to the value of the structure, does not appear to be illegal and improper. 
[604 A-DJ 
Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and Ors. v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and Ors., 
A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 66 and State of Kera/a v. P.P. Hassan Koya, A.I.R. 1968 
S.C. 1201, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1082 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.1991 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.906 of 1990. 
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for A.K. Goel for the Appellants. 
R.K. Jain, Manoj Goyal, Ashish Kumar Verma, P .K. Jain and Ms. 
Abba R. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.N. RAJ, J. The question for our consideration in this appeal is 
whether the expression "Building" in Section 3(i) of the U .P. Urban Build-
ings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) means 
only the super-structure or it includes the land underneath it also. 
It is not necessary to go into the history of litigation between the 
parties, suffice it to say ti.iat the building in dispute was let out to the Sales 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Tax Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh by one Devender 
Singh. His application under proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act for 
enhancement of rent was allowed by the Rent Cor.trol and Eviction Officer H 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTSf1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
and he enhanced the rend to the building from Rs.300 to Rs.5,622.87 per 
month. The appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Addi-
tional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur was dismissed. The State of 
Uttar Pradesh challenged the order of the courts below before the High 
Court by way of a writ pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.