ASHOK BHAN, J. - (1.) LANDLORD -petitioner filed petition for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') regarding the premises in dispute.
(2.) BELI Ram, landlord let out a shop to Ram Partap, respondent No. 1 in the year 1952 for the first time. Tek Chand, respondent No. 2 is his brother and it was alleged that the, shop had been sub let to Tek Chand. The premises in dispute were rented out in the year 1962 under a fresh rent note at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-per annum. Landlord claimed that the prices since 1962 had gone up and the fair rent be now fixed at Rs. 3,000/-per year. Respondents filed the written statement and controverted the allegations made in the application taking the plea that Tek Chand. is the direct tenant under the landlord; that the shop was let out through Ram Pratap to the Hindu undivided family. Business of Hindu undivided family was run in the name and style of M/s Jai Ram Jethu Ram and the respondents were-members of the said joint Hindu undivided family. This business continued up to 1968 and, thereafter, the partition took place. Ram Partap left Mandi Kalanwali and shifted to Mansa and started his business there. The rent was being accepted by Beli Ram at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per annum since 1968 from Tek Chand. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : "1. Whether the applicant is owner of the, house in dispute and the respondent is a tenant over the same? OPA. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the applicant is entitled to fair rent as alleged in application? OPA. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder-of necessary parties? OPR 4. Whether the respondent is entitled to special costs? OPR. 4-A. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form OPR. 5. Relief. "
(3.) RENT Controller decided issues No. 1, 3, 4 and 4-A in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Under issue No. 2, it was held mat the landlord was not entitled to any increase in the rent. Rent of Rs. 1,000/- per annum was ordered to be treated as a fair rent of the demised premises. Tel Chand alleged sub-tenant filed appeal and Beli Ram, landlord filed cross-objections. 5. Appellate authority dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-objections with the observation that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller regarding sub-tenancy between the landlord and respondent No. 2 be not considered as a finding given in the case. It may be noted here that Rent Controller in the proceedings under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent has recorded a finding regarding sub-tenancy. 6. The only point to be considered in this revision petition is regarding issue No. 2. Admittedly, the building in dispute was in possession of Ram Partap from the year 1951-52 which proves that the construction of the building was completed before December 31, 1961. The basic rent of the building could be the rent prevailing in the locality for similar buildings let out to a new tenant during the year 1962. Landlord failed to produce any evidence that the rent of similar type of building during the year 1962 was Rs. 1,000/ -. Since the landlord failed to prove the prevailing rent of the similar type of building in the year 1962 the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate authority have rightly dismissed the petition for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Act. Further the authorities below have rightly ordered that the rent of Rs. 1,000/- per annum be treated as fair rent. 7. There is no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed. No order as to costs.;