GOBIND RAM Vs. KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short controversy involved in the present civil revision is as to whether after the expiry of the period of a contractual tenancy, the rent mentioned in the rent agreement can be said to be the rent agreed within the meaning of Section 4(2)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act').

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the respondent-landlord had entered into a rent agreement dated 18.12.1972 giving the tenanted property on rent for a period of one month i.e. from 15.12.1972 to 14.1.1973 of Rs. 400/- per month. The landlord filed an application on 26/27.9.1980 for determination of fair rent under Section 4 of the Act. The Rent Controller vide order dated 21.7.1983 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 866.25 per month. This determination was made on the basis of the prevalent rent in the locality at the relevant time. The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Hissar, contending that the rent stipulated in the rent agreement should have been considered as rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant preceding the date of application for determination of fair rent under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act. He, therefore, challenged the action of the Rent Controller in determining the fair rent on the basis of the rent prevailing in the locality for similar buildings. The Appellate Authority rejected this contention on the ground that since the period of tenancy as mentioned in the rent agreement had already expired, the rent mentioned in the rent deed could not be treated as rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant preceding the date of application. He placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Kailash Chander Jain v. Mool Raj Sondhi, 1982(2) RCR 273 and also in Puran Chand v. Hardwari Lal, 1977 RCR 643. It is against these findings the present civil revision has been filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Ishwar Swaroop Sharma v. Jagmohan Lal, AIR 2001 SC 370 : 2000(2) RCR (Rent) 649 (SC), wherein it has been clearly held that for fixing the rent under Section 4 of the Act, the only question would be - was there a subsisting agreement of tenancy under which rent was payable when the application for fixation of fair rent was filed ? If the answer was in the affirmative, the agreed rent must be taken as the basic rent. If not, then the basic rent is the prevailing market rate. In the present case, it is apparent that the contractual tenancy had already come to an end on 14.1.1973 as the rent agreement dated 18.12.1972 was only for a period of one month. It is true that even after termination of contractual tenancy, the tenant had been paying rent @ Rs. 400/- per month, but that was in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Act which makes the tenant liable statutorily to pay the rent. Paras 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court are reproduced below for the sake of convenience :-