DOGAR MAL Vs. GURANDITTA MALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 21st April, 1965, fair rent of the Miani in dispute, which is part of a bigger building, was fixed at 4075, by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, under section 4 of the East Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the After six years, in 1971, the landlord filed a fresh application for fixation of fair rent in respect of the same Miani on that the ground that there has been considerable development in the locality and fair rent of the premises in such developed locality deserves to be fixed at higher rate of rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the sole ground that by virtue of section 5 of the Act, a second petition is not competent unless it is shown that there was some subsequent addition, improvement or alteration made in the demised premises at the expenses of the landlord and at the request of the tenant. However, the Rent Controller found that there was considerable development in the locality since the fair rent was fixed. The landlord filed an appeal and the learned Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Rent Controller on the first point. The landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that there is no merit in this revision. A reading of section 5 of the Act clearly shows that in case fair rent is fixed there can be no further increase except on the ground where some addition, improvement or alteration has been carried out at the expense of the landlord. It is the admitted case that there is no such addition, improvement or alteration and, therefore, section 5 clearly bars a second petition.

(3.) Before parting it may be observed that the Appellate Authority fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 24.75 and not at 4.75. The Appellate Authority seems to have read a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller dated 6th November, 1954, which was on the record of the trial Court but was not exhibited, as is apparent from a reading of the middle portion of pars 7 of his judgment. I have also gone through that certified copy and it shows that for the entire building, including the Miani, fair rent was fixed at Rs. at 24.75 but for the Miani in dispute the fair rent was maintained upto this Court at Rs. 4.75. The judgment of this Court is on the record.