BADRI PARSHAD Vs. SHAM LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed by the landlords-petitioners against the order of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, thereinafter called the Act), dated January 31, 1974, whereby the appeal of the landlords-petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent is admittedly the tenant of the two shops which were leased out to him on the basis of a leased-deed executed on April, 30, 1965. Application for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Act, was filed by the tenant. According to his averments, the two shops, in question, had been taken on a yearly rent of Rs. 1147.50 or Rs. 95/10/-per mensem including taxes, which was excessive. The monthly rent in 1938-39 was only Rs. 50 and the existing rental value of the shops in dispute, at the time of filing of the petition, was not more than Rs 20 per mensem. According to the entry relating to rent, in the property tax and house tax registers of the Municipal Committee, the prevailing rent was Rs. 10 per mensem. The petition was contested by the landlords-petitioners. According to them the rent, as per the lease deed, had been fixed at Rs. 150 per mensem but the respondent was given the benefit of Rs 54/6/- per month for a period of five years and according to the agreement, Exhibit P R. 4, executed on May 1, 1965, if the tenant did not vacate the premises on April 20, 1970, the rent was to be charged at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) It is admitted by the learned counsel for the landlords-petitioners, that from the date of the original lease, that is, April 21, 1965, for five years, that is up to April 20, 1970, the rent was paid and received by the landlords-petitioners at Inc agreed rate of R. 95/10/- per mensem. It is however, urged that after April 20, 1970, the agreed rent was Rs. 150 per mensem according to the agreement, Exhibit R.4 and there being no convincing evidence regarding the basic rent this agreed rent should be held to be the fair rent. The entire case of the landlords-petitioners is based on the agreement, Exhibit R 4. A perusal of this agreement shows that there is a reference to one rent deed which, however, was not produced by the landlords-petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the landlords-petitioners, prior to April, 1970, the concession to the tune of Ps. 5416/- per mensem had been given to the tenant on the condition that he will vacate the premises, after 5 years He was not entitled to this concession as he had not vacated the same. In these circumstances the sole question to be determined is : What should be the agreed rent ?