SAT PARKASH Vs. SARBH DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE house in question is No. 2887 in Bagichi Mangal Dass at Patiala. Originally it consisted of a single story -comprising of three rooms, one deohri and a courtyard. It was let by the landlord, Sarbh Dayal, to the tenant, Sat Parkash, at a rental of Rs. 10 per mensem in the year 1938 -39. On an application by the landlord for eviction of the tenant, he obtained an order of eviction and succeeded in dispossessing the tenant on August 18, 1959. The ground for eviction, on which he succeeded, was requirement of the house for his own occupation. After that the landlord reconstructed the house He added three more rooms to the ground storey and then he constructed an upper storey of three rooms with two stairs to come up to the upper storey. The accommodation in the house was thus increased twice the size than it was when the tenant was evicted from the original house.

(2.) THE reconstruction of the house was completed sometime in 1961. The landlord instead of occupying the reconstructed house himself, proceeded to let it to a tenant. On that the original tenant, Sat Parkash, made an application under Sub -section (4) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act III of 1949), for being restored possession of the house to him on the ground that although the landlord had obtained his eviction from the house for his personal occupation but that he had not occupied it within a year from the date of his vacating the same. In that application obviously the tenant succeeded and he was put back into possession of the reconstructed house on February 10, 1965.

(3.) THE Rent Controller, after taking evidence of the parties again, reported back on April 5, 1967, that the fair rent should be Rs. 30 per mensem. He proceeded on the basis that the rental value of the building in 1962 for house tax purposes was assessed at Rs. 50 per mensem and if it was worked back to a year prior to January 1, 1939. it would come hypothetically within the range of Rs. 30 per mensem He was obliged to make this approach because the parties led no acceptable evidence with regard to prevailing rent in the locality in which the house is situate in regard to the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the period of twelve months prior to January 1. 1939. When the appeal of the tenant came for consideration before the Appellate Authority again on May 23, 1967, the learned Judge proceeded to fix the basic rent at Rs. 35 per mensem and allowing an increase of Rs. 5 per mensem, he fixed the fair rent at Rs. 40 per mensem. He proceeded on the basis that the rent for the old accommodation was Rs. 10 per mensem and because of the new amenities provided in reconstructed house and the additional accommodation he was of the opinion that the house as reconstructed could easily have been let at Rs. 35 per mensem in the year prior to January 1, 1939. Obviously the learned Judge was proceeding on nothing else but guess. If the parties had even produced some evidence to show what was the average increase in the prevailing rents between the years 1939 and 1962, that might have formed some basis to support the opinion of the learned Judge, but he had absolutely no basis for coming to the conclusion that the house, reconstructed as it is, would have fetched Rs. 35 per mensem as rent in the year prior to January 1, 1939. Against the order of the Appellate Authority both the landlord and the tenant have filed revision applications (Civil Revision Applications 659 of 1967 and 512 of 1967 respectively), obviously the landlord desiring the increase of the fair rent and the tenant, the decrease as against the figure of fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority.