HARI SINGH Vs. AMAR CHAND BUTAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that the respondent had not adduced sufficient evidence for the fixation of the fair rent of the shop in the occupation of the petitioner and in that view, dismissed the application. However, on an appeal, the appellate authority, on the basis of the materials available, determined the fair rent payable by the petitioner in respect of the premises in his occupation at Rs. 150 per mensem inclusive of municipal taxes and the respondent was held entitled to this fair rent, as fixed from the date of the judgment, that is, 16 -9 -1993.

(2.) In support of this revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner first contended that the instances of the prevalent rent in the locality, as noticed by the appellate authority in paragraph 12 of its order, are all with reference to new buildings and that cannot, therefore, be adopted as a basis for fixation of fair rent in respect of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner. It is, however, not payable to accept this contention. Under section 4 (2) (a) and (b) of the Act, the determination of the fair rent is with reference to a particular date line and not whether the building is new or old. Under section 4 (2) (a) of the Act, which, it is not in dispute, is applicable to this case, all that is relevant is that the rent prevailing in the locality for similar building or rented land let out to new tenants during the year 1971 and not the condition of the building either as old or new. In view of this clear and specific provision under section 4 (2) (a) of the Act, this contention cannot be accepted.

(3.) Learned Counsel next contended that no improvements, whatever, have been made in relation to either the locality or the premises in the occupation of the petitioner, therefore, the fixation of rent, in the manner done, is not warranted. Even with reference to this, having regard to section 4 (2) (a) of the Act, the question of improvements either in the premises or with reference to locality, where the premises is situate, is not a relevant consideration and hence this contention is also rejected.