DARSHAN LAL Vs. KIRNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' revision petition arising out of the fixation of fair rent application filed by the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord filed the application under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. It was pleaded that the shop, in dispute, was constructed in the year 1968, after it had been purchased by the landlord vide sale deed, Exhibit A. 1. It was let out to the tenants at an annual rent of Rs. 400/- for a period of one year from July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970, vide rent note, Exhibit A. 5. The application for fixation of fair rent was filed on September 12, 1980, alleging therein that the construction of the tenanted premises was completed some time during the year 1968 i. e. much after December 31, 1961. In paragraph 6, it was specifically pleaded that there was no agreed rent between the parties about the tenanted premises preceding the date of application. In the reply filed on behalf of the tenants, though the averments made in paragraph 5 were denied, yet in reply to paragraph 6 of the application, it was stated that the said paragraph was not denied. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence came to the conclusion that the plea taken by the tenant that the construction was prior to the year 1961, was not tenable and since there was no agreed rent between the parties preceding the date of the application, the fair rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 400/- per mensem. In appeal, the appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller with the observations,-" i am of the considered view that the prevalent rate of rent has rightly been determined by the Rent Controller to be Rs. 400/- per annum The Rent Controller could have even awarded over and above that rent according to the price index but he considered the same to be the actual fair rent. "

(3.) THE learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners submitted that the view taken by the authorities below was wrong as it was a case where the agreed rent between the parties was Rs. 400/- per annum. The learned counsel also submitted that even after the expiry of the lease period the tenants continued to pay the same rent and, therefore, the same will be deemed to be the agreed rent between the parties. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Firm Bhagwan Singh and Co. v. The Central Bank of India, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 290.