Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1403 (PNJ)

Jagan Nath v. Suraj Bhan

2002-12-18

N.K.SUD

body2002
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This Civil revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon dated 11.8.1986 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant against the order of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon dated 7.6.1985 has been accepted and the order of the Rent Controller fixing Rs. 93/- as fair rent of the demised premises has been set aside. 2. The landlord-respondents had filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the `Act). They had based their claim on the ground that since the building had been constructed in the year 1969-70, the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 55/- had to be treated as the basic rent for determination of fair rent. The tenant-respondent on the other hand controverted this claim and maintained that the building had been constructed in the year 1960 and had been let out to him in April, 1969. The Rent Controller accepted the claim of the landlord-petitioners. However, the Appellate Authority in appeal has found that neither the petitioners nor the tenant had produced any evidence as to the year in which the building had been constructed. In the absence of this vital information, the Appellate Authority was of the view that it could not be said as to which of two clauses of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act was to be applied. Applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in Durga Devi v. Bahadur Chand, 1985 Haryana Rent Reporter 115 : 1986 (Sup.) RCR(Rent) 351 (P&H), the Appellate Authority has held that the application for determination of fair rent deserved to be dismissed. 3. Mr. Hemant Sarin appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that since there was no dispute about the agreed rent being Rs. 55/- per month, the same should have been treated as the basic rent for the purpose of determination of fair rent. He, however, has not been able to show as to how this rent could be treated as basic rent in case the building was constructed prior to 31st December, 1961. It has been correctly observed by the Appellate Authority that in the absence of any evidence about the year of construction of the demised premises, it was not possible to decide as to which of the two clauses viz. It has been correctly observed by the Appellate Authority that in the absence of any evidence about the year of construction of the demised premises, it was not possible to decide as to which of the two clauses viz. (a) or (b) of sub-section (2) of the Section 4 of the Act was attracted. 4. In this view of the matter and also in view of the law laid down by this Court in Durga Devis case (supra), no fault can be found with the action of the Appellate Authority in allowing the appeal and dismissing the application of the petitioners for determination of fair rent. 5. Accordingly, I find no merit in this civil revision, which is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.