PARBHU DAYAL (DIED) REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. OM PARKASH AND OTHERS Vs. RAM KISHAN (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. RAM KISHAN AND ORHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has directed this revision petition against the order dated 30th October, 1979 of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, fixing the fair rent of the shop in in dispute at Rs. 62.50 Paise per month.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the shop in dispute was rented out to Parbhu Dayal tenant, on 18th July. 1955 at the monthly rent of Rs. 30/. On an earlier application of the tenant, the fair rent of the shop was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 22/ - per month vide order dated 22nd November, 1960. This position was upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as by the High Court on the revisional side. The landlord then filed the present application on 30th September, 1974 for fixation of fair rent The Rent Controller vide its order dated 26th March 1976. fixed the fair rent at Rs. 125/ - Per month, but without determining the basic rent The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 3rd August, 1971, directed the Renu Controller to determine the basic rent and submit report. Against that order of the Appellate Authority the landlord went in revision which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. Revenue, Haryana, on 3rd May, 1978. The Rent Controller then submitted the report dated 11th September, 1979 fixing the basic rent at Rs. 20/ - per month. The Appellate Authority vide its impugned, order, however, on the objection filed by the landlord determined the basic rent as Rs 50/ - per month and fair rent at Rs. 62.50 paise.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that at the revisional stage the Court can appraise the evidence if the Appellate Authority bad not properly done so and had differed with the view of the Rent Controller on facts The findings of the Supreme Court in Mrs Mohini Suraj Bhan's case (supra) can be safely referred in this regard. The perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority reveals that the evidence of Gobind Ram, A.W.1, regarding the rent of his shop being at Rs. 35/ - per month was ignored, as it related to the period prior to the year 1962. There is no dispute that under the amended provisions of Section 4(2)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 the relevant year for fixing the basic rent is 1962 in respect of buildings which were in existence or completed on or before 31st day of December, 1961, the rent prevailing in the locality for similar building etc. let out to a new tenant during the year, 1962. In other words, it can be well said that the rent prevailing in the locality for similar buildings or rented land let out to a new tenant during the year, 1962, would determine the basic rent of the building. Thereafter the increase or decrease in the rent has to be worked out in accordance with the average of All India whole -sale price index, as per provisions of Sub -section (3) of this section. Under these circumstances, it can not be said that the Appellate Authority bad wrongly ignored the evidence of Gobind Ram, A.W.1 in this regard because he had hired the shop earlier to 1962. On the other hand, the perusal of evidence of Ram Avtar, A.W. 6, owner of one of the two shops as depicted in the site plan, A.W. 5/1. got prepared from Sat Narain, Draftsman, clearly shows that the shop was constructed in the year 1962 and rented out at Rs 50/ - per month. He further stated that the said shops fall at a distance of 1/2 furlong from the shop in dispute. The testimony of Suraj Bhan, A.W. 7, a marginal witness of the rent -note A W. 7/1 and A -W7/2 relating to the two shops depicted in the plan Ex. A.W. 5/1 further proves that the rent of these two shops was at Rs 50/ - per month, and that these were rented out in the year 1962 No doubt these two shops are located in Sabzi Mandi at Gurgaon Cantt. whereas the shop in dispute is located in Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon Cantt, but all the same their intervening distance being 1/2 furlong, it can be said that these shops are not located in the same locality Admittedly, the shop in dispute covers large area and is a spacious one as compared to the shops, subject matter of rent notes Ex.AW -7/2, though the above referred two shops located in Sabzi Mandi are better constructed than the construction of the shop in dispute, but all the same the difference in construction would be set off by the large size of the shop in dispute than the two shops located in the Sabzi Mandi. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the findings of the Appellate Authority are erroneous in this regard.