RAJ KUMAR CHUTANI Vs. PREM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner before me. He filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act for fixation of fair rent. Admittedly, the premises were let out to the respondent on a rent of rupees 100/- per month inclusive of taxes. The building was let out on 10.6.1975. It is also not in dispute that it was constructed only in or about 1972 after the cut off date fixed in Section 4, namely, 25th of January, 1971. Petition for fixation of fair rent was opposed on the ground that it was not maintainable inasmuch as the agreed rent was rupees 100/- per month and the building was one constructed after 1971. The Rent Controller took a curious view that there was no agreement for rent immediately prior to the date of application for fixation of fair rent. He has construed the section to mean that if there is no agreement immediately prior to the date of application, fair rent can be fixed on the basis of rent prevalent in the locality for a similar building or rented land on the date of application. Hence he fixed rupees 500/- per month as fair rent plus municipal taxes from the date of application.

(2.) THE tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge (I) Shimla. The learned Additional District Judge has construed the section to mean that once there is an agreement between the landlord and the tenant, then there can be no application for fair rent on the basis of rent for similarly situated buildings unless such agreement had been changed. In that view, the learned Additional District Judge has negatived the application for fixation of fair rent. However, the Additional District Judge has granted the periodical increase at 10% once in five years as provided in Section 5 of the Act. The aggrieved landlord has thus preferred this revision petition.

(3.) I am unable to accept the said contention as there was no such plea either before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller after referring to the entire evidence on the record has merely proceeded on the footing that there was no agreement for rent immediately prior to the date of application for fixation of fair rent nor in the evidence of the landlord has he made any statement to the effect that the agreed rent was only for a period of one year and for subsequent years, there was no agreement.