- (1.) This is a Revision filed by the landlords against the conflicting assessment of fair rent by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in regard to a shop situated in Gurdwara Bazar, Kotkapura. It is not disputed that the contractual rent which is being paid for the shop at present is Rs. 83.85 paise per month There also appears to be not much controversy on the point that the rent for this shop in the year 1938 was Rs. 360/- per annum, which comes about to Rs. 30/- per month, The respondent-tenant was earlier paying Rs. 61.62 paise per month as rent for the shop which he voluntarily raised to Rs. 83-85 paise. Both the parties produced conflicting material in support of their respective contentions. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the basic rent of the shop should be Rs. 60/- per month and after allowing the statutory increase in the same, he fixed the fair rent at Rs. 83.85 paise, i.e. the one which the tenant was voluntarily paying. The tenant appealed and the Appellate Authority concluded that the basic rent of the shop should be Rs. 40/- per month and by allowing an increase of 37-1/2 percent, he fixed the fair rent of the shop at Rs. 55/-. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the landlords against this verdict.
(2.) As already noticed, both the parties have led conflicting evidence most of which is not very reliable All that emerges from this evidence is that in the year 1938, the present shop as it existed at that time was rented out at the rate of Rs. 350/- per annum. Both the Authorities were also alive to the fact that since the year 1938, the locality in which the shop in dispute is situated, has changed radically in so far as amenities like pucca roads, drainage, electricity are concerned. In consequence of these amenities, the Appellate Authority increased the basic rent to Rs. 40/- per month. However, while doing so it appears to have lost sight of one important circumstance that according to the evidence led by the petitioners, they had spent Rs. 2,000/- on constructing an additional room in the shop and providing other improvements by way of a shutter and a wall etc.
(3.) Mr. K.C. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to go rather too far in arguing that as the shop in dispute did not exist in the present shape in the year 1938, its fair rent could not be fixed. In this behalf, he placed reliance upon Ved Parkash v. Puran Singh and another,1978 1 RLR 30. The said authority is, however, quite distinguishable in as much as it is not the case of the petitioners themselves that an entirely new structure has come into existence All that is done is that an additional room in the shop has been provide. This does not mean that the present shop was not in existence in this shape in the year 1938. His argument is, therefore, repelled.;