ANAND KUMAR Vs. FATEH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's application in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the appellate authority, the District Judge of Mahasu, under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (III of 1949).

(2.) The petitioner occupies a building in Solan known as Badru Khan House, and he applied to the Rent Controller under Section 4 of the Act for determination of its fair rent. Under Sub-section (2) of that section fair rent is determined on the rental value of the building entered in property tax assessment register and prevailing rates of rent in the locality during 1938. Property tax having never been assessed in Solan, the Controller acted only on the other datum. He took into consideration the rent of certain buildings in Solan in the year 1938, particularly the rent of a building known as the Kapoor Lodge, and he came to the conclusion that Rs. 1,200/- per annum should be the basic rent of the building in question. He also allowed an increase at 25 per cent. on that basic rent under Section 4 (3) (i) (c), and thus he fixed Rs. 1,500/- per annum, or Rs. 125/- per mensem, as the fair rent of the building. On the landlord going up in appeal to the District Judge, the latter enhanced the fair rent to Rs. 1,750/- per annum. The reasoning adopted by him in doing so is contained in the following sentences:

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent referred against to the evidence produced in this case and discussed at length by the Rent Controller. It is however noteworthy that the appellate authority also did not question the interpretation put on that evidence by the Rent Controller. He endorsed the view of the trial Court that a letter dated 30-3-1938 relied upon by the landlord had been rightly rejected by the trial Court, and he also did not question the evidence of the tenant's witness Pandit Karta Kishan, retired Deputy Commissioner Mahasu district, to the effect that the house in question and the Kapoor Lodge were equally well situated, that the living accommodation in both was almost equal, and that the Kapoor Lodge was superior to the house in question at least in one respect, namely, that it had a much larger compound. The respondent is in the circumstance not entitled to seek a different interpretation being put on the said evidence by this Court in revision. Certain new points raised in this connection on his behalf may however be considered.