2025:UHC:4065 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 457 of 2015 16 MAY, 2025 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. --Petitioner Versus Shri Pramod Kumar Agarwal --Respondent [[[ With Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3221 of 2015 Pramod Kumar Agarwal --Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. --Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Udit Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 457 of 2015 alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 457 of 2015 is filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, challenging the order dated 19.01.2015, passed by District 1 2025:UHC:4065 Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Section 29-A(5) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act No. 13 of 1972’). By the said order, landlord’s application for determining rent of the land let out to petitioner was allowed and annual rent was determined as `11,15,23,200/-; petitioner was directed to pay `7,80,66,240/- as arrears of rent between 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2014 with a further direction to him to pay `9,29,360/- as monthly rent, w.e.f. 01.01.2015. 3. It is not in dispute that father of respondent had let out the land in question in favour of Esso Standard Eastern Inc., by a registered lease deed dated 15.04.1963, for a period of ten years effective from 01.04.1963, at the monthly rent of `150/-, for setting up a petrol pump. 4. In terms of provisions contained in Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (4 of 1974), the assets of Esso Standard Eastern Inc. were acquired by the Central Government and a new Corporation in the name and style of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) was established w.e.f. 15.07.1974 in its place, for refining of crude oil 2 2025:UHC:4065 and distribution of various petroleum products. As per provision contained in Sections 5 & 7 of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, all the rights and interest of Esso Eastern, Corporation were transferred to HPCL w.e.f. 15.07.1974, and HPCL became the lessee in respect of the land in question, by virtue of Section 5 of the said Act. 5. On 25.11.2008, landlord moved an application under Section 29-A(5) of Act No. 13 of 1972, for determination of rent of the land in question. In paragraph no. 8 of the said application, landlord admitted that his father received agreed rent at the rate of `150/- per month, till 31.03.1989. In paragraph no. 13 of the application, it was mentioned that area of the land is 929.36 square meters; circle rate for commercial land in the locality is `11,000/- per square meter, therefore, valuation of the land is `1,02,22,960/-, and he prayed that 10% of the market value of land, i.e. `10,22,296/- be directed to be paid as annual rent to him. 6. Section 29-A, which was inserted in Act No. 13 of 1972 by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 w.e.f. 05.07.1976, is extracted below:- 3 2025:UHC:4065 “29-A. Protection against eviction to certain classes of tenants of land on which building exists.- (1) For the purposes of this section, the expressions “tenant” and “landlord” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (a) and (j) of Section 3 with the substitution of the word “land” for the word “building”. (2) This section applies only to land let out, either before or after the commencement of this section, where the tenant, with the landlord’s consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in execution thereof. (3) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this section, the provisions of Section 20 shall apply in relation to any land referred to in sub-section (2) as they apply in relation to any building. (4) The tenant of any land to which this section applies shall be liable to pay to the landlord such rent as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties, and in the absence of agreement, the rent determined in accordance with sub-section (5). (5). The District Magistrate shall on the application of the landlord or the tenant determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land and such rent shall be payable, except as provided in sub-section (6) from the date of expiration of the term for which the land was let or from the commencement of his section, whichever is later. (6) (a) In any suit or appeal or other proceeding pending immediately before the date of commencement of this section, no decree for eviction of a tenant from any land to which this section applies, shall be passed or executed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20, provided the tenant, within a period of three months from the commencement of his section by an application to the court, unconditionally offers to pay to the landlord, the enhanced rent of the land for the entire period in suit and onwards at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land together with costs of the suit (including costs of any appeal or of any execution or other proceedings). (b) In every such case, the enhanced rent shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), be determined by the court seized of the case at any stage. (c) Upon payment against a receipt duly signed by the plaintiff or decree-holder or his counsel or deposit in court of such enhanced rent with costs as aforesaid being made by the tenant within such time as the court may fix in this behalf, the court shall dismiss the suit, or as the case may be, discharge the decree for eviction, and the tenancy thereafter, shall continue annually on the basis of the rent so enhanced; 4 2025:UHC:4065 (d) If the tenant fails to pay the said amount with the time so fixed (including any extended time, if any, that the court may fix or for sufficient cause allow) the court shall proceed further in the case as if the foregoing provisions of this section were not in force. (7) The provisions of this section shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract or instrument or in any other law for the time being in force. Explanation— For the purposes of sub-section (6) where a case has been decided against a tenant by one court and the limitation for an appeal therefrom has not expired on the date immediately before the commencement of his section, this section shall apply as it applies to pending proceedings, and the tenant may apply to that court for a review of the judgment in accordance with the provisions of this section.” 7. The application, made by landlord under Section 29-A(5) of Act No. 13 of 1972, was rejected by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar), vide order dated 15.01.2011, by holding that landlord had not given notice to petitioner, before initiating proceedings for determination of rent, due to which, petitioner was unable to exercise his option to continue or not to continue as tenant qua the land in question; Sub Divisional Magistrate further held that annual rent of the land in question has to be determined on the basis of market rent prevailing in the locality and not on the basis of circle rate. 8. Landlord challenged the said order dated 15.01.2011, by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 468 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.03.2014. Order passed by coordinate Bench in the 5 2025:UHC:4065 said writ petition is reproduced below:- “Learned counsel for both the parties submit that there is no requirement of any lease agreement for invoking Section 29(A) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Having placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trust Jama Masjid Waqf. No. 31 Vs. Lakshmi Talkies and others reported in 2010 (9) SCC 78, learned counsel for both the parties submitted that matter should be remitted back to the District Magistrate to decide the application moved under Section 29(A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 afresh in accordance with law, within such stipulated time, as this Court may deem fit. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, present petition is being disposed of with following directions: i. Impugned judgment and order rejecting the application under Section 29 (A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is hereby quashed. ii. Matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate to proceed afresh, in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties to place on record their respective evidence on the question of valuation of property and to decide the matter afresh, after hearing both the parties. iii. Parties shall appear before the District Magistrate on 22.04.2014 for further orders. Thereafter, District Magistrate shall fix the date in the matter and shall make every endeavour to the decide the matter afresh in accordance with law preferably within next six months.” 9. It transpires that landlord filed fresh application before District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar under Section 29-A (5) of Act No. 13 of 1972, in which, it was stated that the market value of the land in question is `1,30,000/- per square meter, therefore, market value of the land is ` 12,08,16,800/-. 10. Petitioner filed objection to landlord’s application. District Magistrate decided the application filed by landlord, vide order dated 19.01.2015 and 6 2025:UHC:4065 returned a finding that the land is valued at `1,20,000/- per square meter and the market value of the land was determined as `11,15,23,200/- and the petitioner was directed to pay `9,29,360/- as monthly rent to the landlord, w.e.f. 01.01.2008 and petitioner was directed to pay `7,80,66,240/- as arrears of rent between 01.01-2008 to 31.12.2014. 11. The order passed by District Magistrate is challenged by HPCL on the following grounds:- (i) The earlier application filed by landlord on 25.11.2008, was rejected by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur and in his writ petition, coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the matter back to District Magistrate for reconsidering landlord’s application, therefore, fresh application with new valuation could not have been filed by the landlord and the District Magistrate erred in allowing the subsequent application and not considering the application which stood restored to the file in view of judgment of this Court. (ii) In the earlier application, filed in 2008, respondent himself valued the land at `1,02,22,960/-, therefore, the value of the land could not have been raised to `12,08,16,800/- in the subsequent application filed in 2014, as it amounts to twelve times increase in the valuation of land within a short span of six years. 7 2025:UHC:4065 (iii) District Magistrate relied upon valuation report dated 05.05.2014 for determination of annual rent w.e.f. 01.01.2008, which is impermissible. Market value of a property keeps on increasing with each passing year, therefore, today’s market value cannot be relied for determining rent for a period several years ago. (iv) Valuation report relied by landlord was procured from a private valuer, who is not approved by the Government, and the valuer was also not examined as witness in the proceedings before District Magistrate. 12. Mr. Udit Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the landlord (respondent) submitted that (i) petitioner in his reply filed before District Magistrate did not raise any objection against filing of second application by landlord nor did he dispute the valuation of the property, as mentioned in the subsequent application of the landlord; (ii) price of land in the locality increased exponentially between 2008 to 2014 due to growth of business and industrialisation in nearby areas; (iii) valuation in the earlier application was made as per circle rate; while, in the application filed in 2014, the market value of the land was 8 2025:UHC:4065 mentioned and District Magistrate, after considering entire material, correctly determined the market value as `11,15,23,200/- ; and (iv) in his reply, filed before District Magistrate, petitioner did not question the authority of the valuer to assess market value of the land. 13. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as assessment of market value made by valuer, on 05.05.2014, cannot be made the basis for determining market value of the land for 2008, especially when in the earlier application filed in 2008, landlord has valued the land at `1,02,27,960/-; while in the subsequent application, value of the land was mentioned as `12,08,16,800/-. District Magistrate was not justified in relying upon valuer’s report dated 05.05.2014 for determining value of the land w.e.f. 01.01.2008, especially when the two applications filed by landlord indicated twelve times increase in market value, within a short span of six years. 14. Even otherwise also, coordinate Bench of this Court while setting aside the order, whereby earlier application filed by landlord in 2008 was rejected, had 9 2025:UHC:4065 remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate to decide the application afresh. 15. The effect of the order passed by coordinate Bench was to revive the earlier proceedings, which were instituted by the landlord in the year 2008. Thus, filing of another application in 2014 was not proper and value of the land indicated in the subsequent application could not have been considered for determining rent from 01.01.2008. Since this goes to the root of the matter, therefore, landlord cannot succeed merely because tenant did not raise any objection against second application. 16. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19.01.2015, passed by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. District Magistrate is directed to decide the application filed by respondent on 25.11.2008, as per law, within nine months from date of production of certified copy of this order. Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3221 of 2015 17. Mr. Pramod Kumar Agarwal, landlord, has also filed a writ petition challenging that part of the order dated 19.01.2015, passed by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Section 29-A 10 2025:UHC:4065 (5) of Act No. 13 of 1972, which provides that the enhanced rent would be payable to him only with effect from 01.01.2008. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to enhanced rent with effect from 05.07.1976. 18. The prayer made by landlord cannot be granted in view of his admission made in the first application filed under Section 29-A(5) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 that his father received rent at the rate of `150/- per month from M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited upto 31.03.1989. 19. Accordingly, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3221 of 2015 is dismissed. ___________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Navin 11 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb90 46f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103 819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB 21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.06.09 14:55:08 +05'30'