Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This case has been called out three time since morning. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, the court left with no option but to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 2. Landlord-Bhagwat Parshad filed a petition for fixing of fair rent under section 4 of the Haryana Urban Rent Control and Eviction Act against Hakim Khan. According to the landlord, the premises, which is a shop, was rented out to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 35/- per month inclusive of house tax. The shop was constructed in the year 1966 and rented out in the year 1967. According to the landlord, the rents have gone up in the market and prayed for increase in the fair rent to Rs. 200/- per month. 3. The petition was contested by the tenant. The rate of the rent was disputed to be Rs. 25/- per month inclusive house tax and denied that the rent upto date has been paid. He also denied that the market rental value of the demised shop was Rs. 200/- Rs. 300/- per month. 4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether what is the fair rent of the disputed premises ? OPA 2. Whether the application is not in accordance with the provisions of Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973 if so to what effect ? OPR. 3. Relief. 5. After permitting the parties to lead evidence, the learned Rent Controller answered the issues in favour of the landlord and fixed the fair rent of the demised shop at Rs. 79.10 per month and directed the tenant to pay rent from the date of application. Parties were to bear their own costs. 6. The tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Learned appellate authority modified the fair rent of the premises in question to Rs. 50/- per month with effect from the date of application and to that extent appeal was partially accepted by the appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved of the decision of the appellate authority, landlord Bhagwat Parshad has filed the present revision petition. 7. The question with regard to computation of fair rent is not more res- interga and stands settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal, 1999(2) RCR (Rent) 466 (P&H) (DB) : 2001(1) P.L.R. 738. 7. The question with regard to computation of fair rent is not more res- interga and stands settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal, 1999(2) RCR (Rent) 466 (P&H) (DB) : 2001(1) P.L.R. 738. The Division Bench clearly enunciated the principles governing the fixation of fair rent. 8. Thus, in view of the settled position of law, this case is remanded to the learned Rent Controller for fixing the fair rent in accordance with the principles enunciated in the above judgment and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.