GELA RAM Vs. SAT PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil Revision Petition Nos. 3346 and 3347 of 1986, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 were admitted to be heard by the Division Bench primarily for the reason that correctness of the opinion expressed in Bhim Sain and another v. Smt Pushpa Devi of Charkhi Dadri, 1984 HRR 418, was doubted. It pertains to the interpretation of Section 4(3) of the Act the relevant part of which reads as follows :-

(2.) THE learned Judge in Bhim Sain's case (supra), while fixing the fair rent in the light of sub section (3) reproduced above, expressed himself in the following manner :- "The Rent Controller found that the wholesale price index in 1955 was 91.5 and 420 in 1977. The learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded before the Rent Controller that the wholesale price index for the year 1977 may be taken into account. The difference between the wholesales price index of 1955 and 1977 is 328.5. The basic rent fixed under section 4(2) of the Act can be increased to the extent of 25 per cent of the rise in the general level of price index since the date of the agreed rent upto the year immediately preceding the date of the application. The difference between the All India Wholesale Price Index of 1955 and 1977 is 328.5. Twenty five per cent of 328.5 covers to a round figure of 82. The fair rent of the shop in dispute if thus fixed at Rs. 37.50 Plus Rs. 82 = 119.50. The finding of the Appellate Authority is modified accordingly." It is thus plain that while allowing the increase in the basic rent as determined under sub section (2) of this section i.e. Rs. 37.50 P.M., the learned Judge instead of taking the percentage of rise in the level of prices in the light of All India Wholesale Price Index as the basis for the increase took 25% of the general rise in price i.e. Rs. 328.5 itself as amount to be increased in order to fix the fair rent under sub-section (3). This on the fact of it, is not the true import of this sub-section. The increase in the general level of the prices is to be noticed only to find out the percentage of the rise in prices in the light of All India Wholesale Price Index. In order to be explicit or to be more specific, it may be pointed out that in the above-noted case the increase that could be ordered over all above the basic rent in order to fix the rent was to be Rs. 30.75 i.e. 82% of the basic rent which in turn was 25% of the percentage of rise in prices, i.e. 328.5 as indicated by the Wholesale Price Index of the year 1955 to 1977. In case the methodology applied by the learned Judge in Bhim Sain's case (supra) is to be accepted as correct, then each and every basic rent, irrespective of its rate was to be increased to the same extent, i.e. by Rs. 82/- in order of fix the fair rent of the demised premises. This certainly is not the true implication of the sub-section. As a matter of fact, the index number as such has nothing to do with the rate of rent of a particular premises. As is commonly said index numbers are only barometer of economic activity, i.e. if one wants to get an idea as to what is happening to economy, he has to look to important indices like the index number of industrial production, agricultural production, business activity, etc. Thus when one has to say that the index number of wholesale price index is 112 for September 1987 a compared to Sept. 1986 when it was hundred, it means there is an increase in the price of wholesale commodities to the extent of 12% during the year. This percentage has only to be found out to work out the percentage by which the basic rent has to be increased in order to fix the fair rent. We thus, overrule the said judgment to the above noted extent.