STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusVII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

A                      STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                                 v.
              VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
B
                     (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.

c         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.


D         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-
E   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-
F   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.      c
                                                                   [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.
                                                                               D
        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.
                                                                               E
        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                              F

      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.
                                                                               G
      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
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 petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
    India which was dismised by the High Court by its Order dated February
B   7, 1991. This appeal by way of special leave is against the Judgment of the
    High Court.

            Section 3(i) and the proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act are
            reproduced hereunder:-.
c           Sec. 3(i) "building" means a residential or non-residential
            roofed structure and includes-

            (i) any land (including any garden), garages and out houses,
            appurtenant to such building;
D           (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such
            building;

            (iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the
            more beneficial enjoyment thereof.
E
            Sec.21(8} .....................•.............................................................
            provided that in the case of such a building the District
            Magistrate may, on the !IPPlication of the landlord, en-
            hance the monthly rent payble therefore to a sum
            equivalent to one-tw~lth of ten per cent of the market value
F           of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced
            shall be payable from the commencement of the month of
            tenancy following the date of the application. Provided
            further that a similar application for further enhancement
            may be made after the expiration of five years from the
            date of the last of enhancement.
G
         The Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Appellate Authority
    under the Act determined the value of the super-structure and also of the
    land separately and thereafter adding both the values, the monthly rent
    payable by the appellant was determined. The High Court upheld the
H   reasoning and findings of the courts below.
           STATE OF U.P. v. ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE [RAY, J.]                   603

       Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the plain A
meaning of the expression "building" under Section 3(i) of the Act shows
that it only meand the super-structure constructed on the land and does
not include the land underneath the building. According to him the in-
clusive definition of "building" is indicative of the fact that the expression
"building" does not include the land underneath it.
                                                                                   B
        Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
landlord has contended that the definition of "Building" under Section 3(i)
of the Act on the face of it is clear and according to him and inclusive part
of the definition is only pertaining to the land appurtenant to the building
and not the land underneath the building. He plausibly contended that the          C
land under the super-structure apparently comes within the expression
 1         11
' building    itself. Even otherwise there can be no justification for exclusing
the land underneath the building while construing the defintio'1 under
Section 3(i) of the Act as there cannot be any super-structure without the
land underneath it. Mr. Jain has, therefore, contended that within the             D
definition of the building comprising roofed structure, the land on which
the building stands automatically comes in and no valuation of such roofed
structure can be completed without reference to the value of the land on
which the roofed structure stands. Mr. Jain has relied on the Judgment of
this Court in Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and Ors. v. Dharam Pal Kapoor
and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 66. In Kapoor's case valuation of a building in the.         E
proceedings under Partition Act came for consideration before this Court.
This Court upheld the value of the building which was determined by
including the value of the land underneath the super-structure. In the said
case this Court relied on an earlier Judgment in State of Kera/a v. P.P.
Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201 wherein while determining compensation               F
under the Land Acquisition Act it was held that the value of the land and
the break-up value of the building cannot be determined separately. It was
further held that land and the building constitute one unit and the value of
the entire unit has to be determined with all its advantages and poten-
tialities.
                                                                                   G
      After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances
of the case, it appears to us that in the definition of building under Section
3(i) of the Act, there is no express exclusion of the value of the land Od
which the building stands. In the absence of such express exclusion, the
land being intrinsically inseparable from the building standing thereon, the H
    604                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A value of the land and the value of the structure or building should be taken
  into consideration and in our view the land on which the building stands
  together with the building or structure constitute one composite unit. It
  may be indicated that 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 valuation of
B land because of such locational advantage creeps into the ultimate valua-
  tion 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. In the aforesaid circumstances, the determination of valuation of
  the building by taking into consideration the value of the land in addition
C to the value of the structure , does not appear to be illegal and improper.
  In any case, the definition of "building" under the Act clearly shows that
  the building thereunder means roof structure including the land under-
  neath the said structure. Inclusive part of the definition only relate to the
  land appurtenant to such building and not to the land underneath the roof
D structure.

          We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with such determination
    made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer since affirmed by the
    Appellate Authority and also by the High Court of Allahabad. The appeal,
    therefore, fails and is dimissed without any order as to costs.

    T.NA.                                                   Appeal dismissed.