D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for revision and is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below holding that the agreed rent is the reasonable rent. The premises in dispute are owned by Ch. Harphul Singh. They are a shop in Sabzi Mandi Clock Tower and this shop has two fronts. It was constructed in 1946 and was leased out to Gian Chand, the present petitioner, at the rate of Rs. 90/ - per mensem. On the 12th November, 1954, the tenant made an application under section 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, for fixing the standard rent of the premises. It is common ground that the case is covered by section 8(1) (b) of the Act, which is in these terms : 8. (1)(b) where at any time on or after the 2nd day of June, 1944, any premises are first let and the rent at which they are let is in the opinion of the Court unreasonable; the Court may, on an application made to it for the purpose or in any suit or proceedings, fix the standard rent at such an amount as, having regard to the provisions of this Act and the circumstances of the case, the Court deems just. In order to arrive at the decision as to whether the rent of the premises is reasonable, the first Court examined evidence and on the basis of that evidence came to the conclusion that the agreed rent was the reasonable rent; It may be mentioned that standard rent can only be fixed after the Court has come to the conclusion that the agreed rent is not reasonable and, therefore, what has to be found first is whether the agreed rent is reasonable or not. For that purpose it is the opinion of the Court which is material.' However in the present case the Court to form the opinion did examine the witnesses and after going through the evidence formed the opinion that the agreed rent was reasonable, The finding of the first Court in this behalf was upheld by the lower appellate Court. It is against the decision of the lower appellate Court that the present petition for revision has been preferred.
(2.) THE contention of Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in arriving at the finding under section 8(l)(b) of the Act; or in other words in forming the opinion as to whether the rent is reasonable or not, the Court is bound to take into consideration the provisions of section 8(4) of the Act. Section 8(4) is in these terms : 8.(4) fixing the standard rent of any premises under clause (b) of sub -section (1), the Court shall fix an amount which appears to it to be reasonable and no standard rent so fixed shall exceed seven and one -half percent of the reasonable costs of construction of the premises. Explanation. -For the purposes of this sub -section, the cost of construction' in respect of any premises, includes the market value of the land comprised in the premises at the time of the completion of such construction. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention, section 8(4) will only come into play after the Court has given a finding under section 8(1)(b) that the rent is unreasonable. We cannot import the considerations of section 8(4) into section 8(1)(b). That being so, the question that required determination by the Courts below as to whether the agreed rent was reasonable or not, being a question of fact, no ground has been made out which calls for interference in revision. I would accordingly dismiss this petition. As no fee -certificate has been filed by the counsel for the respondent, there will be no order as to costs.;