(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed by the Punjab National Bank, which is tenant on the demised premises, against the order dated 21.10.1994, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide which fair rent of the demised premises has been fixed at Rs. 4,660.50 per month by giving an increase of Rs. 1,266/- on the basic rent.
(2.) THE demised premises is the ground floor of building No. 183, Sector 19, situated at G.T. Road, Karnal. It was let out by the respondent to the New Bank of India, which subsequently amalgamated with the petitioner Bank, at the monthly rent of Rs. 2,325/-. Earlier an application for fixation of fair rent was filed by the respondent under Section 4 of the Act and on that application, the fair rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,947.40 per month with effect from 28.05.1986, but in appeal it was fixed at Rs. 3,394.50 per month by the Appellate Authority. Now, on 31.10.1991, after the expiry of a period of five years, the respondent has filed an application for revision of fair rent under Section 5 of the Act. On that application, learned Rent Controller determined the fair rent of the demised premises at Rs. 3,834.62 per month with effect from 31.10.1991, vide his order dated 03.03.1993.
(3.) SHRI H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Appellate Authority has committed two irregularities while calculating and determining the fair rent of the demised premises. Firstly, the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly applied the price index of the base year of 1970-71 whereas it should have applied the price index of the base year of 1981-82 as this base year was prevalent when the application for revision of fair rent was filed. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the increase in the price index from the base year 1986 to the base year 1991 is 377.8. The learned Appellate Authority has calculated the 25% of the aforesaid increase whereas in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 466 (P&H) : 2000-3 PLR 221, 25% of the percentage of increase has to be calculated.