Pritam Singh Jain vs Jiwan Das

G.R. Majithia, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2809, 2882 to 2885 of 1979 since the main question of law arises in all these petitions is identical.

The Petitioner is a landlord. He filed seven applications for fixation of fair rent of the tenanted premises leased cut to the various tenants. These applications were consolidated and the entire evidence was recorded in Petition No. 98/2 of 1978/1974 Pritam Sain Jain v. Sunder Lal. In all these cases identical issues were framed and these read as under:

(1) What is the basic rent of the shops in question?

(2) What is the fair rent of the shops in question?

(3) Relief.

The Rent Controller on appraisal of the evidence produced on record held that there was no escape from the conclusion that the agreed rent was the basic rent. Under issue No. 2, he allowed an increase of 25 per cent in the agreed rent as provided u/s 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ''the Act''). The Petitioner landlord aggrieved against the order of the learned Rent Controller assailed the same before the Appellate Authority who maintained the same and found that the Rent Controller correctly came to the conclusion that the evidence on record could not establish what was the prevailing rate of rent of similar buildings in the locality during the year 1962 and in this situation be found that the agreed rent was the basic rent. Learned appellate authority further found that the increase in basic rent by 25 per cent was fully justified. He pointed out that the landlord himself has sought increase per cent in the basic rent on the basis of wholesale price index.

Sub-clause (3) of Section 4 of the Act lays down that Rent Controller can increase or decrease the basic rent determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The limit has been fixed at 25 per cent of the rise or fall in the general level of prices since the date of agreed rent or the date of application, as the case may be. The substance of the provisions of Sub-clause (3) of Section 4 of the Act thus leads to the conclusion that the Rent Controller cannot allow an increase of rent exceeding 25 per cent of the agreed rent. The Rent Controller had taken the agreed rent as the basic rent and could only increase the basic rent by 25 per cent. This is what he has precisely done and the finding recorded by him were affirmed by the learned appellate authority.

I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. The revision petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.