- (1.) This is a landlord's petition arising out of matter pertaining to fixation of fair rent. On the application of the tenant-respondent, the contractual rent of a shop situated on Kutchery Road, Ludhiana, was altered from Rs. 53/- to Rs. 18/- per mensem as fair rent, which order has been maintained in appeal by the landlord-petitioner. To challenge the same, is the present revision petition.
(2.) The petition is based on the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority as well by the Rent Controller, to the effect that the shop in dispute was not in existence in the year 1938 and that it had been built in the year 1952. The finding of such fact was not disputed between the parties at the appellate stage. The time thus observed for the construction of the shop was taken to be settled. On that premises, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the year 1953, when the shop was constructed, the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were not made applicable to the building as the same was exempted by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act operative till 1957. It was further contended that the contractual rent prevailing in 1957 could not be scuttled to date back in the year 1938 so as to fix the basic rent of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 12 per mensem and to add thereto 50 per cent of the basic rent in accordance with section 4(5)(i)(b) of the Act. Relying upon Mirah Devi v. Birbal Dass, 1977 AIR(SC) 2191 , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for arriving at the figure of basic rent, the prevailing rate of rent in the locality for the same building has got to be determined and that the prevailing rate payable for the same building before the 1st January, 1939 can form the basis of the fixation of the basic rent only when the same building was in existence in similar circumstances during the period. It was also pointed out that identical will be the position with reference to the prevailing rate of rent for similar accommodation. On the strength of aforesaid decision, it was contended that as per the concurrent finding of the courts below, the shop in dispute was not in existence in the year 1938 and as such determination of fair rent under Section 4 of the Act was well high impossible, And even if fair rent had to be assessed ignoring sub clause (2) of Section 4 of the Act in the light of a decision of the Division Bench of this court, in Ram Parshad v. Raghubir Singh, 1969 CurLJ 1895 the figure of contractual rent being Rs. 53/- per mensem, inclusive of electricity charges, had not been found and cannot be found on re-appraisal of evidence to be in any case excessive or exorbitant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate court is very loose and shaky inasmuch as it only records the existence of the shop as it then stood in the year 1952. In particular, the statement of the petitioner as R.W. 4 read to point out that the construction of the shop in question could not be of the year 1952 and had to date back years earlier. The extracts from the statement of R.W. 4 maybe taken note of :- "I am the owner of the shop in dispute. I constructed the same in 1952. This property was owned by me and my brother and it was partitioned in the year 1952 between myself and my brothers. It was constructed by me after the partition. It was Verandah before partition. The adjoining shops were also built in the year 1952........The dispute shop did not exist in the year 1938-39........In the year 1952 I did not get the site plan sanctioned from Municipal Committee as the walls were already existing. I had covered the verandah into a shop at that time. The verandah was constructed in the year 1914. Our partition effected through a written deed." It is apparent therefrom that the courts below took the age of the construction of the shop in dispute of a time when the Verandah stood added to, improved upon, or suitably altered on the same four walls and the roof. Necessarily, the building as such could not be said to have been constructed in the year 1952 so as to attract the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The construction time thus, has to date back to a building which stood constructed prior to the commencement of the Act, if not to any earlier date, then 1st of January, 1939. On that reasoning the error, if any, in the judgments of the Courts below stands rectified. The basic rent as found by the courts below was based upon the evidence provided by Sohan Lal A.W. 1, who stated that he had obtained a shop in the year 1933, 10 shops away from the shop in dispute on Kutchery Road for Rs. 12/- per mensem. He also produced receipts Exhibits A-1 and A-2 with regard to payment of rent for the months of March and June, 1959. Sohan Lal A.W. 1 also claimed that the area of his shop as well as the shop in dispute was practically similar and that his shop was at a more advantageous position than the shop in dispute. On that strength the basic rent was fixed at Rs. 12/- per mensem and was added to the extent of 50% so as to make Rs. 18// per mensem. To such conclusion, no fault can be found, especially when the shop in dispute is shown to have been constructed prior to the commencement of the Act and only altered and improved upon in the year 1952 when it was given on rent.
(3.) No other point arises.;