JOGINDER KUMAR Vs. MUKESH KUMAR SHINGALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of a tenant challenging the validity of the fair rent as fixed by the Rent Controller that was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel began his argument by seeking to contend that rent had been fixed in October, 1992 @ Rs. 300/- per month and the petition had been filed within 5 years, which went against the interdict of Section 5 of the Act. I find this contention to be wrong and misleading, for the case itself was considered on a plea by the landlord that after the death of the father when he demanded Rs. 300/- as rent, the tenant, who originally accepted, did not pay the rent. He was, therefore, contending for fixation of fair rent on the basis that the rent had been changed to Rs. 190/- per month from the year 1978 when he was initiated as a tenant and that the fair rent has to be fixed on that basis. In appeal, the tenant wanted to contend that there had been some receipts given by the father fixing the rent at Rs. 190/- in the year 1992 and therefore, the base year must be given as 1992. This contention was also found to be false, for the Court found that the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence were photocopies and there had been no reason given as to why the originals-were not filed. The Appellate Authority further reasoned that these documents themselves had not been confronted to the witness landlord when he was examined and therefore, there was no basis for reception of the secondary evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wants to contend that these documents must have been taken as additional evidence. The fundamental question arises as to why the person, who was trying to rely on photocopies, could not produce the originals. Secondary evidence could not be admitted unless there is a foundation laid down in the manner that law requires. No such basis for production of secondary evidence was given. The rejection of additional piece of evidence was, therefore, justified.

(2.) The determination of fair rent has been by the application of the principle laid down under Section 4 of the Act when the Appellate Authority has found that if the base rent was taken as Rs. 190/- per month in the year 1978, the increase had to be with reference to the whole sale price index of 825 points in the year 1995 which meant an increase of All India Wholesale Index at 650 points and 25% of the same came to 160% increase. The said percentage of the basic rent of Rs. 190/- came to Rs. 304. This was the permissible increase and the Rent Controller had fixed the rent to be Rs. 190+304 = Rs. 494/- per month. The fixation of fair rent conforms to the formula laid down under Section 4 of the Act. There is no scope for interference. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.