Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 313 (PNJ)

Punjab National Bank v. Prithi Pal Singh

2003-02-19

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the Punjab National Bank, which is tenant on the demised premises, against the order dated 21.10.1994, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), vide which its appeal against the order dated 19.05.1993 passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of the demised premises at Rs. 3,959/- per month was dismissed. 2. The demised premises is the first floor of building No. 183, Sector 19, situated at G.T. Road, Karnal. It was let out by the respondent to the New Bank of India, which subsequently amalgamated with the petitioner bank, at the monthly rent of Rs. 2,674/-vide lease deed dated 27.12.1984. On 31.10.1991, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent of the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 19.05.1993 fixed Rs. 3,959/- per month as the fair rent of the demised premises by giving an increase of Rs. 1,285/- on the agreed rent of Rs. 2,674/-. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-tenant, against which it has filed the instant revision petition. 3. Shri H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below have wrongly taken into consideration the price index of the base year 1970-71 whereas in the instant case, the price index of the base year 1981-82 should have been taken into consideration. Secondly, learned counsel submitted that the Courts below have not calculated the fair rent on the basis of the formula provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, as has been interpreted by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal, (2000-3)126 P.L.R. 221. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that Rs. 2,674/- should be treated as the basic rent. It is undisputed that the agreed rent should be the basic rent in view of the decision of Honble Apex Court in Ishwar Swaroop Sharma v. Jagmohan Lal, (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 158. There is also no dispute as far as the figure of increase in the price index for the base year of 1970-71 and for the base year 1981-82. It is undisputed that the agreed rent should be the basic rent in view of the decision of Honble Apex Court in Ishwar Swaroop Sharma v. Jagmohan Lal, (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 158. There is also no dispute as far as the figure of increase in the price index for the base year of 1970-71 and for the base year 1981-82. The only dispute is as to which of the base year is applicable. In my view, the Appellate Authority has rightly applied the price index of the base year of 1970-71. Since base year of 1981-82 came into operation in July, 1989, therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly taken into consideration the base year of 1970-71. According to this base year, increase in the price index from the year 1984 to the year 1990 is 193.4. On this increase, the 25 percentum has to be given on the basic rent. In my opinion, the learned Appellate Authority has not calculated the increase in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act as has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal (supra). The learned Appellate Authority has calculated the 25% of the increase in the price index as 193.4, which is not the increase of the percentage of the increase in the price index. The total increase in the price index and percentage of the increase in the price index are two different things, The total increase in the price index is 193.4. Keeping in view the aforesaid increase in the price index and the principle for determining the fair rent on such increase as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal (supra), the fair rent of the demised premises in the present case should be calculated in the following manner: Basic rent Rs. 2,674.00 Figure of the wholesale price index for the year 1986 333.8 Figure of the wholesale price index for the year 1990 527.2 Increase in price index (527.2 - 377.8)193.4 Percentage of difference between the two figures of price index 57.94 25% of the said increase 14.48 On the basis of the aforesaid 25% increase, fair rent will come to (9.88 x 3394.50/100)Rs.387.20 Fair rent (Rs. 2,674.00 + Rs. 387.20)Rs. 3,061.20 5. 2,674.00 + Rs. 387.20)Rs. 3,061.20 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned orders dated 19.05.1993 and 21.10.1994 passed by the Courts below are set aside and the fair rent of the demised premises is fixed at Rs. 3,061.20 with effect from 31.10.1991.