SHAROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenges order dated 18.8.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar accepting the appeal of the tenant-respondent in which the order dated 16.3.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar was impugned. This Rent Controller on an application filed by the tenant-respondent under Section 4 of the Act seeking fixation of fair rent has concluded that no documentary evidence to prove the rate of rent of the demised shop in the year 1938-39 was produced and that there has been improvement in the locality after 1938-39. On the aforementioned basis, the Rent Controller has given the finding that both the ingredients of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act have not been fulfilled and, therefore, the basic rent of the demised shop could not be fixed. The Rent Controller further concluded that the shop in dispute is taken by the tenant-respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- and in the absence of fixation of basic rent, the agreed rent has to be considered as fair rent with regard to the demised shop. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant-respondent filed an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, Amritsar. The Appellate Authority after detailed discussion reached the conclusion that the shop must be in existence in the year 1938-39 and the claim of the landlord-petitioner that the shop was constructed in the year 1945-46 has been proved to be wrong. The rent of the demised shop in the year 1940 was Rs. 22/- and the same should have been considered as the basic rent. The findings of the Rent Controller were thus reversed. The aforementioned conclusion drawn by the learned Appellate Authority is based on the house tax assessment register produced by the tenant-respondent showing that M/s. Bhai Sahib Singh Avtar Singh used to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 264/- per annum and there was no specific denial in this regard. The copy of the assessment register has been placed on record as Ex.AW-2/1. In this regard the view of the Appellate Authority reads as under :-

(2.) THE learned Appellate Authority also rejected the stand of the landlord- petitioner that the demised shops were constructed in the year 1945-46 in the following words :-

(3.) APART from the above mentioned evidence the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the statement of AW-4 Naresh Kumar who is a shopkeeper in the same area and a tenant under the landlord-petitioner. Reference has also been made to the statement of Faqir Chand AW-6, another shopkeeper of the same locality occupying shop No. 52, who is also a tenant of the landlord- petitioner. The Appellate Authority on the basis of over-whelming evidence reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller in the following words :-