NAND KISHORE Vs. DES RAJ CHOPRA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE demised shop was taken on rent by the tenant, who is Respondent from the Custodian at Rs. 8 per mensem in 1949. Subsequently the landlord, who is Petitioner purchased this property from the Rehabilitation Department.

(2.) AN application was moved by the landlord under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Act, for fixation of fair rent of the demised shop at Rs. 27.50 paise per mensem on the allegation that its basic rent in the year before January 1, 1939, was Rs. 20 per mensem. The tenant having contested the increase in the rent of the demised shop, the parties appear to have made statement before the Rent Controller that the basic rent of the demised shop a year before January 1, 1939, was Rs. 7.25 paise per mensem and so, after allowing statutory increase, the fair rent fixed was Rs. 10 per mensem. The learned Counsel for the landlord says that no statement was made by the parties before the Rent Controller, but the Rent Controller in his order says that "It was admitted before me by the Petitioner as well as the Respondent that such a shop could fetch rent at the rate of Rs. 7.25 paise per mensem during 1938 -39." The Rent Controller did not discuss the evidence on the record at all and all that he said was that he had gone through the evidence and felt satisfied that the basic rent of the demised shop should be Rs. 7.25 paise per mensem and then he proceeded to refer to the admission of the parties in that behalf before him.

(3.) THE appellate authority having reached the conclusion as above, it had to decide the appeal of the landlord, the tenant not having come before it against the order of the Rent Controller. It has to be remembered that the appellate authority was considering, even in appeal, the application of the landlord under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. Sub -section (2) of that section provides the criteria for arriving at basic rent and Sub -section (1) reads in this manner "The Controller shall on application by the tenant or landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such inquiry as the Controller thinks fit." Now, it is obvious that once the Rent Controller has been moved for fixation of fair rent, the ambit of the inquiry is entirely within his control. There is an object for this wide power having been left with the Rent Controller and that is pointed out by the learned Judge in Lekh Ram's case, I.L.R. (1962) 1 P&H 641 :, 1962 P.L.R. 197, the reason being that an order fixing fair rent is an order in rem and not merely an order inter partes. Once fair rent of the premises is fixed, it attaches to the premises and is not merely a decision between the parties. Hence a duty is cast on the Rent Controller to make as just an inquiry as he should think fit to fix fair rent of the premises, provided an application is moved by one of the two parties, either the tenant or the landlord. Thus the Rent Controller is not in any way restricted, by the pleadings of the parties, to any manner of fixing the fair rent. He must fix the fair rent after arriving at the basic rent on the criteria provided in Sub -section (2) of Section 4 and after holding as complete an inquiry as he thinks fit.