KASHMIRI LAL AND ANOTHER. Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an order fixing Rs. 12/- as the fair rent of the shop in dispute of which the agreed rent according to the tenant was Rs. 18/- whereas according to the landlords it was Rs. 80/- per mensem.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1971 and the locality where it was constructed was not inhabitated in the year 1938-39 and this locality was developed later on. The tenant's application for fixation of fair rent was dismissed by the Rent Controller who came to the conclusion that strong evidence was not brought on the record for the fixation of basic rent and, therefore, fair rent could not be fixed. The tenant went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and on the basis of a judgement of this Court in Ram Parsad v. Raghbir Singh,1969 CrLJ 895, wherein it was held that the Rent Controller cannot dismiss an application for fair rent, it went through the evidence on the record and fixed Rs. 8/- as the basic rent and Rs. 12/- per mensem as the fair rent. The landlords have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The previous application filed by the tenant is Exhibit A-1 on the record which goes to show that an application for fixation of fair rent was file don 19th March, 1971, claiming that Rs. 4/- should be fixed as the fair rent. That application was got dismissed as withdrawn by the tenant on 18th April, 1972. In the present application, prayer is made again by the same tenant for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 4/- per mensem. On the general principles of public policy and the rule of justice, equity and good conscience, as embodied in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the tenant could not have been allowed to file a fresh petition on the same, facts without showing any change of circumstances. The rule of justice, equity and good conscience contained in order 23 rule 1, is salutary and can be applied to the proceedings before the Rent Controller also in spite of the fact that Order 23, Rule 1 as it is does not apply to those proceedings. The tenant has failed to show any change of circumstances for filing a fresh petition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that he cannot be allowed to harass the landlords second time and on this score alone, the second petition for fixation of fair rent at this instance should have been dismissed. However, this will not debar any subsequent tenant to have the fair rent of the shop in dispute fixed in future.