RAM RACHHPAL Vs. KAILASH WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of the landlord.

(2.) Ram Rachhpal is a tenant under Kailash Wati in a shop situated at Phagwara. He was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 28 per mensem. He filled an application under section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for fixation of fair rent of this shop and claimed that the rent of the shop should not exceed Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 per mensem. The landlady in reply to these assertions stated that the demised premises previously used to consist of three rooms and in the year 1957 they were reconstructed at a considerable cost. Thereafter they were rented out to the petitioners. The rent of small shops ranged between Rs. 30 to Rs. 70 per mensem. The Rent Controller framed three issues :

(3.) The Rent Controller had come to the conclusion that there was no evidence of the file meeting the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (2) of section 4 of the Act. The only evidence relevant for the determination of the controversy between the parties was the statement of Puran Chand, R. W. 3. he relied upon this statement to the effect that the rent of the shop in dispute was Rs. 10 per mensem in the year 1938. He did not accept the evidence adduced by the landlady that she reconstructed the shop in dispute in the year 1957. Taking the basic rent as Rs. 10 he fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 13.75 P. The Appellate Authority minutely examined the evidence produced by the parties. He believed Madan Lal, R. W 1, Ram Parkash, R. W. 2, Mohan Singh, R. W. 4 and Rattan Chand R. W. 6. These witnesses had stated that the premises had been reconstructed in the year 1957. The three rooms had been converted into a single big room. The internal walls of the rooms were removed. The roof was relaid. The floor had also been reconstructed and a raised platform had been built. A smaller door had been replaced by a new and bigger room. Electricity had also been fitted. Even Puran Chand (R. W. 3) on the basis of whose statement the fair rent had been fixed by the Rent Controller had stated that the shop in dispute had been reconstructed and then rented out to the petitioners. I have also gone through the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties. The witnesses produced by the landlady and relied upon by the Appellate Authority have made straightforward and convincing statements. The Appellate Authority was the final Court of fact. He has reached certain conclusion of facts on the basis of evidence. In exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to take a different view of the evidence.