Dadri Education Society vs Jagdish Parshad

Naresh Chander Jain, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order of the Appellate authority.

The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner Society filed an application dated 13.9.86 against the tenant for fixation of fair rent on the averments that the learned Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri in a previous application between the same parties fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 149.50 paise per month with effect from 1.10.79 and that since a period of five years has elapsed, the petitioner-society is entitled to fixation of fair rent afresh, in accordance with law. The Rent Controller determined the fair rent at Rs. 213 per month from the date of the application The matter went up in appeal at the instance of the tenant and in appeal the appellate authority has reversed the order of the Rent Controller by fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 170/- per month. The petitioner-landlord has come up in revision petition against the order of the appellate authority.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fixation of fair rent is contrary to the dictum of law laid down in Gela Ram v. Sat Pal Sharma (1988) 94 P. L. R. 35. My pointed attention was drawn to the following observations of the Division Bench in Gela Ram''s case (supra).

"It is thus plain that while allowing the increase in the basic rent as determined under sub section (2) of this section i.e. Rs. 37.50 P. M., the learned Judge instead of taking the percentage of rise in the level of prices in the light of the average of All India Wholesale Price Index as basis for the increase, took 25% of the general rise in the prices i.e., Rs. 328.5 itself as the amount to be increased in order to fix the fair rent under sub-section (3). This, on the face of it is not the true import of this sub section The increase in the general level of the prices is to be noticed only to find out the percentage of the rise in prices in the light of All India Wholesale Price Index. In order to be explicit or to be more specific, it may be pointed out that in the above noted case the increase that could be ordered over and above the basic rent in order to fix the fair rent was to be Rs. 30. 75, i.e. 82% of the basic rent which in turn was 25% of the percentage of rise in prices, i.e. Rs. 328.5 as indicated by the Wholesale Price Index of the year 1955 to 1977. In case the methodology applied by the learned Judge in Bhim Sain''s case (supra) is to be accepted as correct, then each and every basic rent, irrespective of its rate was to be increased to the same extent, i.e. by Rs. 82/- in order to fix the fair rent of the demised premises. This Certainly is not true implication of this sub section. As a matter of fact, the index number as such has nothing to do with the rate of rent of a particular premises. As is commonly said, index numbers are only barometers of economic activity, i.e. if one wants to get an idea as to what is happening to economy, he has to look to important indices like the index number of industrial production agricultural production, business activity, etc. Thus when one has to say that the index number of wholesale prices is 112 for September, 1987 as compared to September 1986 when it was hundred, it means there is a net increase in the prices of wholesale commodities to the extent of 12% during the year. This percentage has only to be found out to work out the percentage by which the basic rent has to be increased in order to fix the fair rent. We thus overrule the said judgment to above noted extent"

The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the aforesaid observations has argued that the appellate authority after recording the finding that the basic rent was Rs. 149.50 paise per month in 1979 and that all the All India Wholesale Price Index of the year 1979 was 206.5. Whereas of the year 1985 it was 353.2 and the difference between the two being 146.8, 25% of which comes to 36.7 (approximately), has committed an error ultimately in following the formula inasmuch as figure of 36.7 was to be multiplied by 149.50 has been divided by 206 which was the price index for the year 1979. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the figure 36.7 while multiplying by 149.50 was to be divided by 100 because it has to be simple percentage and in view thereof the increase of basic rent of Rs. 149.50 come to Rupees 54.68. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely right in his submission. The appellate authority in paragraph 9 of its judgment has committed an error in dividing the figure of 36.7x149.50 by 206. Instead thereof, keeping it view of the ratio of law laid down in Gela Ram''s case (supra), the figure 36.7 (being 25% of the difference in two Wholesale Price Indices) X 149.50 (i.e. the basic rent) was to be divided by 100 because the increase to the extent of 25% can be given by the Rent Authorities while determining the fair rent. Consequently, the appellate authority was bound in law to give an increase of Rs. 54.87.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed and the fair rent of the premises in dispute stands determined at Rs. 204.36 paise per month plus house tax w.e.f. 13.9.1986, that is, the date of filing of the petition for fixation of fair rent. No costs.