BAIJ NATH Vs. GAINDA MULL HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (1987 Act for short) was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla vide a judgment passed by him on 18th March, 2005 whereby he determined the fair rent of the property in question at the rate of Rs.20/- per Sq. foot. Since the property in question comprises an area of 442 Sq. feet, the fair rent determined on that basis was calculated at Rs.8840/- per month which he decided was payable by the respondent to the petitioners from the date of filing of Section 4 petition i.e.9th July, 2002. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Rent Controller under Section 24 of 1987 Act. The learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla vide the impugned judgment dated 21st February, 2007 while allowing the appeal of the respondent and setting aside the judgment dated 18th March, 2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 4 of 1987 Act. The petitioners have now come up to this Court under Section 24 (5) of 1987 Act invoking this Court's revisional jurisdiction challenging the aforesaid judgment of the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE short ground which formed the basis of the learned Appellate Authority allowing the appeal filed by the respondent was that in accordance with the applicable statutory provision relating to the fixation of fair rent under 1987 Act, the petitioners-applicants had not adduced any evidence as to what was the prevailing rent in the locality for a similar building let out to a new tenant during the year 1971. The following observations in para 12 of the impugned judgment are apposite. I reproduce hereinbelow para 12 for ready reference, which reads thus:-

(3.) IN a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Hari Singh vs. M/s Amar Chand Butail and sons, reported in 1994 (2) Sim.L.C. 393 V. Ratnam, C.J. (as he then was), while dealing with the scope and applicability of Section 4 of 1987 Act observed as under:-