Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 170 (PNJ)

Mela Ram v. Lekh Raj

2003-01-29

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mitta, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the owner of the Appellate Authority vide which the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month has been set aside and the same has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 161/- per month from the date of application. 2. In the instant case, the petitioner-landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Admittedly, the premises in question, which is a shop, was rented out to the respondent-tenant at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month on 1.10.1978. It has further been alleged in the application that the premises was constructed in the year 1968. The petitioner-landlord claimed that the similar building in the vicinity of the demised premises were fetching rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, he prayed that the rent of the shop in question may be fixed at Rs. 500/- per month. 3. The respondent-tenant contested the aforesaid application and prayed that the petitioner-landlord is already charging more rent from him as while taking the demised premises, he agreed to pay Rs. 140/- per month under the stress and strain of the circumstances. He pleaded that the agreed rate of rent may kindly be reduced to Rs. 40/- per month. 4. The Rent Controller fixed the rate at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month. The respondent-tenant challenged the said order in appeal, The Appellate Authority found that the Rent Controller has not assessed the fair rent according to the procedure and formula prescribed under Section 4 of the Act. The Appellate Authority took the agreed rent of Rs. 140/- per month as the basic rent and after that fixed the fair rent at Rs. 161/- per month, after taking into consideration the percentage of increase in the wholesale price index. Against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned or der passed by the learned Appellate Authority. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned or der passed by the learned Appellate Authority. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority by making an increase in the rent to Rs. 21/- while fixing the fair rent of the demised premises as Rs. 161/- per month from the date of fil ing of the ejectment application. The Rent Controller in the present case has net fol lowed the procedure and principle for fixation of the fair rent. He enhanced the fair rent to Rs. 240/- per month on the basis of the prevalent rent in the locality by treating the in stant case as falling under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The instant case does not fall in the said clause. Admittedly, the demised premises in question was constructed in the year 1968 and the same was let out to the respondent-tenant in the year 1978 on the agreed rent of Rs. 140/- per month. Therefore, in the present case Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 is applicable. Secondly, the agreed rent of Rs. 140/- will deem to be the basic rent in view of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in Ishwar Swaroop Sharma v. Jagmohan Lal, (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 158. On this basic rent, the rent is to be enhanced on the basis of the increase in the wholesale price index. In the year 1978, the wholesale price index was 185 and in the year 1982, it was Rs. 295.3. On this basic rent, the rent is to be enhanced on the basis of the increase in the wholesale price index. In the year 1978, the wholesale price index was 185 and in the year 1982, it was Rs. 295.3. Keeping in view the said increase in the price index and the principle to determine the fair rent on such increase, as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal,2 (2000-3)126 P.L.R. 221, the fair rent of the demised premises is to be calculated in the following manner:- Basic rent Figure of the wholesale price index for the year 1978 Figure of the wholesale price index for the year 1982 (immediately preceding the year of presentation of application under Section 4 of the Act, which was filed on 23.11.1983) Increase in price index (295.3 - 195) Percentage of difference between the two figures of price index 25% of the said increase On the basis of the aforesaid 25% increase, fair rent will come to (14.9 x 140)7100 Fair rent (Rs. 140.00 + 20.86)Rs. 140/- 185 295.3 110.3 59.62% 14.9% Rs. 20.86 Rs. 160.86 6 In view of the aforesaid calculation of the fair rent, the Appellate Authority has rightly fixed the fair rent at Rs. 161/- per month. I find no illegality or infirmity in the said order. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby, dismissed, with no order as to costs.