PARSHOTAM LAL Vs. MATU RAM TRUST JIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 94, 146 and 218 of 1984 as the question involved is the same in all their cases.

(2.) LANDLORD Matu Ram Trust (hereinafter called the Trust, through Brij Mohan, filed three applications under Section 4(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of fair rent against the tenants, Lal Chand, Lal Singh and Purshotam Lal, out of which Civil Revision Petition Nos. 146, 218 and 94 of 1984, respectively, have arisen. The premises in dispute are three shops and one room on one of those shops, which are adjacent to each other. The said premises were constructed after December 31, 1962. In the case of Lal Chand, tenant, the premises were rented out to him vide rent note dated November 2, 1973, on a monthly rent of Rs. 16/-, whereas in the case of Lal Singh and Prshotam Lal, tenants, they were let out vide rent notes dated November 5, 1973 and November 2, 1973, at the rate of Rs. 61/- and Rs. 39/- per month, respectively. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion in the applications filed against Lal Chand and Purshotam Lal, tenants, that Rs. 100/- per month, and in the application filed against Lal Singh, tenant that Rs. 125/- per month should be the fair rent in view of the rent prevailing in the locality for similar buildings. Aggrieved against the same, the Trust and Purushotam Lal and other tenants, filed appeals. In the appeal filed by the Trust against Lal Chand, tenant, the Appellate Authority maintained the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent at Rs. 100/- per month whereas in the other two appeals i.e., in the appeal filed by the Trust against Lal Singh, tenant, and in the appeal filed by Purushotam Lal, tenant, against the Trust, the fair rent was enhanced from Rs. 125/- per month to Rs. 185/- and from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per month, respectively. Aggrieved against the same, all the three tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in these revision petitions.