Civil Revision No.67 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.67 of 2010 Date of decision : 8.1.2010 Pardeep Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Shri Darshan Lal ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The learned Rent Controller, while allowing a plea filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban Control of (Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), revised the fair rent of the premises under reference to Rs.1000/- + house tax. The order by the learned Rent Controller proceeded on the premise that the agreed rent was Rs.950/- per month + house tax. In appeal, however, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding by holding that basic rent ought to have been fixed at the enhanced rate which had been agreed upon between the parties vide covenant 8-C of the agreement/compromise (Ex. R1). The learned Appellate Authority did not agree with the plea on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that covenant 8-C had been incorporated into Ex.R1 surreptitiously. It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order that Civil Revision No.67 of 2010 -2- **** the plea of surreptitious introduction of the covenant aforementioned into Ex. E-1 was negatived by the learned Appellate Authority for want of evidence supportive thereof. It was in the light of above foundational premise that the learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the basic rent was required to be determined on the basis of rent prevailing in the locality for a similar building only if there was want of agreed rent between the parties. It further upheld the entitlement of the parties to enter into a bilateral agreement providing for periodical increase except in an eventuality which attracts the applicability of Section 6 of the Act. The line of reasoning adopted by the learned Appellate Authority is perfectly in order and is further in accord with the law. The learned counsel has not been able to persuade this Court to hold the contrary. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine. January 08,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE