RAM PARSHAD Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The demised shop is situate at a crossing on the railway road in Hoshiarpur town, It was let by Ram Parshad, the landlord, to Raghbir Singh, the tenant on August 18, 1961, at a rental of Rs. 100/- per mensem. The tenant made an application under Section 4(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949), for fixation of the fair rent of this shop. He said that its fair rent was no more than Rs. 10/- per mensem, the rent which the landlord himself was paying to the Custodian before he purchased this shop from him.

(2.) It is accepted on both sides that in the year 1938-39 on the railway road in Hoshiarpur town there were only four or five shops, that the demised shop was constructed in 1943, that the demised shop was burnt during the riots in the year 1947 and was let by the Custodian to the landlord in that condition at a rental of Rs. 10/- per mensem, and that since 1947 this railway road has come to be a busy shopping centre, the whole of the road having been occupied with shops. On the side of the tenant was examined A.W. 4, whose shop is said to be about ten or eleven shops away from the demised shop and is a single-storeyed shop. He pays Rs. 20/- per mensem as rent. A.W. 5 said that his shop is about eight or nine shops away from the demised shop, is also a single-storeyed building, and he pays Rs. 7/- per mensem as rent. A.W. 6 said that his shop is thirteen or fourteen shops away from the demised shop, is a single-storeyed building and he pays Rs. 10/- per mensem as rent. The shops with A.W. 4 and A.W. 6 are not shown to have been in existence in the year 1938-39 for these tenants said that they had been in their shops respectively from the years 1943 and 1942. They did not say the shops existed in the year 1938-39. A.W. 5 said that his shop existed some thirty years earlier to the years in which he was making statement in 1964, which means that it existed ever since 1934. The evidence of none of these three witnesses has been accepted by the authorities below because in the case of none it was shown that the shop with him compared in any respect with the demised shop, apart from this that in the cases of A.W. 4 and A.W. 6 the shops have not been shown to exist in the year 1938-39. So the evidence of these witnesses was not found helpful. A.W. 9 has his shop eight or ten shops away from the demised shop. Its measurements are 13/1/2 x 17/1/2. He took it on rent at Rs. 55/- per mensem and says that its fair rent was fixed at Rs. 9/- by the Rent Controller on July 18, 1964. Copy of the order of the Rent Controller is Exhibit A/X. His is a single-storeyed shop. There is then A.W. 10 whose shop is seventeen or eighteen shops away from the demised shop, consisting of two rooms and a platform, on an area of two marlas, and the witness says that the fair rent fixed has been Rs. 6.75 paise per mensem. Copy of the order of the Rent Controller with regard to his shop is Exhibit A.W. 8/3 the date of the order being November 5, 1960. The order of the Rent Controller shows that it was claimed that the shop with A.W. 10 had been constructed in 1939 and as the tenant said that he had taken the shop at a rental of Rs. 4/8/- per mensem from the very beginning, so the Rent Controller accepted that statement and after allowing the statutory increase he fixed the fair rent at Rs. 6.75 paise per mensem. The authorities below have not accepted these two instances as helpful in this case either, obviously on the view that those two shops are not same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances as in the twelve months proceeding January 1, 1939, as compared to the demised shop. So both the authorities have discarded the whole of the evidence of the tenant. The landlord examined three witnesses. R.W. 1 said that his shop adjoins the demised shop and its rent is Rs. 60/- per mensem, it being a double-storeyed building. R.W. 2's shop is opposite to the demised shop, is a single-storeyed building, and is about 6' x 4' in area with a rental of Rs. 20/- per mensem. It is a pan-wala's shop. There is one shop that intervenes between R.W. 3's shop and the demised shop and the rent of this witness's shop is Rs. 80/- per mensem. It is single-storeyed shop. This witness was not able to say how his shop compared with the demised shop. R.W. 2's obviously, being a panwala shop, is small in size and would not compare with the demised shop at all. There is no manner of finding out how R.W. 1's shop compared with the demised shop. Not one of these shops was in existence in the year 1938-39. The demised shop is admittedly a four-storeyed building. Neither the witnesses of the tenant nor of the landlord brought evidence of a building of same or similar type as the demised shop. They could not possibly bring evidence of same or similar shop existing in 1938-39 because no such building of that size and dimensions existed on the railway road in Hoshiarpur town in that year. The question of assessment of property tax by the municipality as regards any building on railway road Hoshiarpur has not arisen and no evidence in this respect has been produced.

(3.) So before the Rent Controller there was no piece of evidence which could be considered either under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Any how the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent on the application of the tenant at Rs. 45/- per mensem and, on appeals by both parties the Appellate Authority has refused to interfere with the order of the Rent Controller saying that the rent fixed by the Rent Controller is not unfair. The order of the Appellate Authority is of July 12, 1967, and against that order both the parties have come in revision. The revisions application of the landlord being No. 928 of 1967, and that of the tenant being No. 86 of 1968.