VED PARKASH Vs. PURAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VED Parkash petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act inter alia averring that the premises in dispute have been in existence prior to 1938 -39 and the rent of the same in that year was Rs. 60/ - per year, whereas he was paying Rs. 650/ - annually as rent to the landlord. He prayed that the fair rent of the shop may be fixed. These averments were denied by the landlord.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: -

(3.) Both the issues were found against the petitioner and consequently it was held that the contractual rate of rent, i.e. Rs. 650/ - per year was the fair rent of the premises in dispute. I have no reason to differ from the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The contention of Shri Bahl, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that documents Exhibits A. 1 and A. 2 prove that a shop was in existence in the year 1939 -40 which was under 'the tenancy of Nawab Din with Bahal Singh as landlord and, therefore, the fair rent should be assessed on the basis of the above mentioned documents, is without any merit. Even if, for argument's sake, it be presumed that a shop was in existence in the year 1939 -40, still there is ample evidence on the record to hold that the said premises were not in the present form. Amar Singh (A.W. 4) admitted that there were four shops with Verandah in between, which Verandah is no longer there. Similarly, Chuni Lal (A.W. 5) admitted in cross -examination that in the year 1938 -39, there was just a Thaw at the spot where the shop was now situate with a temporary shed over it. There are the statements of the witnesses produced by the petitioner himself. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of the authorities below that the shop in dispute was not in existence in the year 1938 -39 in the present form and there was a sort of shed (Chahappar) at the spot wherein vegetables were being sold. Similarly, reference to the Tax assessment Register of various other shops Exhibits 12 to 20 is of not much assistance to the petitioner. The entries in the register no where throw any light as to the dimensions, locations or other necessary particulars of the shops regarding which entries were made in the register. In this view of the matter, this evidence is of no assistance and thus has been rightly brushed aside by the authorities below. Admittedly, according to the petitioner himself, the shop in dispute was let out to him 15 to 16 years before at the rent of Rs. 650/ - per annum. There is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the contractual rate of rent was not a fair rent. If the parties failed to adduce evidence to enable the Rent Controller to come to the conclusion as regards the basic rent or the fair rent it cannot be successfully contended that the Rent Controller was duty bound to further probe into the matter. The Rent Controller could not create evidence one way or the other.