BALBIR KUMAR Vs. SHANTI SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by Balbir Kumar and his mother who are landlords, against the decision of the Appellate Authority, who had not enhanced the fair rent to their satisfaction.

(2.) Shanti Sarup, the tenant under the petitioners, filed an application under section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act') for fixation of the fair rent of the shop, in dispute, alleging that the rent of this shop during the year 1938 was Rs. 12 per month and it was the basic rent also. This application was contested by the landlords. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 16 50 P. per mensem. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioners filed an appeal which was partly allowed and the fair rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 275 per annum. The Appellate Authority mainly relied on the fact that the present tenant had been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 200 per annum in the years 1940-41. Dissatisfied with this order, the landlords have filed this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. A. N. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that there was no legal evidence on the file that the rent of the demised premises in the year 1940 was Rs. 200 per annum. It has been contended that the evidence of Sham Lal, son of Moti Ram, is not worth reliance the documentary evidence produced by him is not admissible and as such; there is no evidence on the file to hold that the basic rent of the premises. in dispute is Rs. 200 per annum. There is no merit in this contention. Sham Lal is a totally independent person. He has deposed on the basis of the documents. His father Moti Ram was the General Attorney of Smt. Maina Devi, the previous, landlady. He has issued receipts in favour of the present tenant showing that the rent in those days war Rs. 200 per annum. The Appellate Authority has rightly relied on the oral statement of Sham Lal based on documentary evidence.