J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 14.8.1987, whereby the application for fixation of fair rent under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been dismissed as not maintainable.
(2.) PRIOR to the present application, an application for fixation of fair rent under section 4 of the Act was filed by the landlord on 4.4.1979. On September 19, 1982, the Rent Controller fixed Rs. 102.75 per month as fair rent besides house tax. The landlord filed an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority where, on compromise, Rs. 125/- per month was fixed as fair rent vide order dated 17.8.1983, with effect from 4.4.1979, that is, the date of application. The landlord filed the present application on 16.11.1984 and claimed that fair rent fixed in respect of the tenanted premises in accordance with law from the date of the application or any other relief to which the landlord is found entitled may also be granted. Objection was taken on behalf of the tenant that no such application was maintainable for fixation of fair rent. Consequently, issue was framed and the Rent Controller found that "If the petitioner has got any grievance against the fixation of fair rent then he can move the application for revision of fair rent under section 5 of the Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973. In the prayer clause the applicant has prayed for the fixation of fair rent in respect of the tenanted premises which has already been fixed vide judgment dated 17.8.1983. Accordingly, the present application is not maintainable and the applicant is estopped from filing this petition because of principle of estoppel."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact the present application was never filed under section 4 for fixation of fair rent. The fact that earlier fair rent was fixed with effect from 4.4.1979 was duly stated in the petition and, therefore, it was virtually a petition under section 5 of the Act for revision of fair rent fixed earlier and the application should have been decided as such. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the Rent Controller in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal.;