RAM PIARI AND ORS. Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The primary question that arises for consideration by this Division Bench on a reference in this revision petition under section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act) is as to whether while fixing the basic rent under sub section (2) of section 4 of the Act, the Rent Controller can determine the same on the basis of evidence which is not strictly in consonance with the type of the evidence specified in clauses (a) and (b) of this sub section. It arises on the following facts.

(2.) The respondent tenant moved an application for fixation of fair rent of the demised shop rented out to him by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner-landlords at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. In support of his claim, the tenant produced evidence to the effect that in the year 1951 this very shop was on rent with one Ram Kishan at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- Ram Kishan duty supported his statement to this effect with receipts Exhibits A. I to A 7. Accepting this rate of rent as the basic rent in the years 1938, both the Courts, giving specified increase in terms of sub section (5) of section 4, determined the fair rent of the shop at Rs. 20.63 per month. Since it is this conclusion of the subordinate authorities which is under challenge it is worthwhile to reproduce the approach and the conclusion recorded by the subordinate authorities in this regard. This is now how the learned Rent Controller concluded later approved by the appellate authority the matter after appraising the evidence on record:

(3.) Once again, the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant on the basis of the judgement in S. S. Bawa Nanak Singh's case contends that in case a tenant fails to produce evidence which is strictly in consonance with the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2), still it is permissible to the authorities under the Act to take into account the rent payable for the premises in question subsequent to the years 1938 and treating that as the basic rent prevalent in the year 1938, the authorities are fully competent to determine the fair rent. After a careful consideration of the said judgement we find that the same is not an authority for the proposition which the learned counsel wants to advance. We fully agree with the reasoning and the distinction pointed out by the learned Chief Justice in Mohar Singh's case . We are further of the opinion that in fact this judgment in S. S. Bawa Nanak Singh's case in principle supports the stand of the other side, that is, the petitioner. After pointing out that in the case before him there was no evidence of the 1938 rent of similar accommodation in similar circumstances, the learned judge proceeded to examine the legal aspect of the matter and held thus :