RAJ KUMAR Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition, at the Instance of the landlord, poses an interesting question, involving (sic) the procedure to be adopted in fixation of fair rent under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Evicton) Act, 1973 (for short, referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that, on December 31, 1973, the landlord filed an application, under Section 4 of the Act, before the Controller, asking him to fix fair rent, for the demised premises, which happens to be a shop in Moti Bazar, Hissar and rented out to the Respondent, at an agreed rent of Rs. 60/ per mensem Such fair rent, on fixation, is required to be operative from the date of the application under Sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. In fixation of such fair rent, the Sub -sections of Section 4 of the Act, as it then stood on the date of the application, came into play, which are reproduced as under : -

(3.) DURING the trial of the application, attention of the Controller was invited to the amendment at a time when he had recorded sufficient evidence of the parties. Thereafter, vide a detailed order, he considered it fit to divert his enquiry towards and in terms of the language of the substituted Sub -section (2) of Section 4, and thus permitted the parties to lead more evidence. The Rent Controller found the basic rent to be Rs 60/ - per mensem, by employing the provisions of the amended Act and adding to it the All India Whole -sale Price Index, determined by the Government of India, relating to 31st December next, preceding the date of the application, determined the fair rent to be Rs 74.49 paise. The Controller based his order, amongst others, on the statements of the tenant's witnesses, Hari Chand, R W, 4 (tenant himself) and Bishan Dass, R W. 6, to come to the conclusion that the rent in the locality, in the year 1962, for similar shops, was not less than Rs. 6 / - per mensem and this rent he held to be the basic rent . Incidentally , the said rent coincided figuratively ith(sic) the agreed rent. Both the parties were dissatisfied with the order of the Controller and two appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority. They were disposed by a single judgment. The appeal of the tenant was allowed and the landlord was completely non -suited. As a necessary consequence, the appeal of the landlord was dismissed and his effort to seek further enhancement in the basic rent also proved abortive. This is how the matter has been brought to this Court in revision, by the landlord.