LAWS(HPH)-1974-12-1

SURJIT SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

Decided On December 12, 1974
SURJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
PRITAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Majority View) - I regret I am unable to agree entirely with my brother D. B. Lal. The facts have been stated in his judgment and need not be repeated here.

(2.) THE first question is whether the landlord and tenant are bound in a proceeding for the fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (which for convenience I shall call "the Act") by an earlier order of the Controller determining the fair rent in terms of a compromise between the same. Parties in respect of the same building.

(3.) NOW the important thing to note is that it is the fair rent of the building which is being determined. It is not the rent payable on the basis of any agreement between the landlord and the tenant, or by reference to the status, financial capacity or other circumstances particular to the one or the other. For fixing the fair rent, what has to be considered is the building, and, not the personality or circumstances of the landlord or tenant. In the absence of any definition in the Act, the expression "fair rent" must mean what is commonly understood by it. It is the rent which the building can be expected reasonably to fetch. The element of reasonableness is governed by such considerations as the nature and extent of the accommodation, the amenities it afford, and its location. So long as the circumstances affecting the building remain the same, the fair rent must remain constant.