IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3955 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.09.2009 Firm Shyam Babu Shri Krishan .....Petitioner versus Mahesh Chand .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J . (Oral) C.M.No.16376-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 149 days in re-filing the revision petition is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.16375-CII of 2009 The prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 3 days in filing the revision petition. It is averred that inadvertently the period of limitation was wrongly counted by the petitioner, due to which C.R. No.3955 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the delay has occurred. The explanation appears to be bonafide. The application is according allowed and the delay of 3 days in filing the revision petition is condoned subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.3955 of 2009 This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 4.1.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari on an application filed under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Evictions) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), whereby the fair rent of the demised premises has been increased from Rs.150/- to Rs.650/- per month, as well as against the order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rewari dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the aforestated order of the Rent Controller, Rewari, being barred by limitation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority reveals that only explanation tendered for the delay was that the petitioner's counsel counsel before the Rent Controller did not supply the certified copy of the order in time. However, the Appellate Authority has found as a matter of fact that even after receiving the certified copy, the petitioner did not prefer the appeal for a period of 53 days which simply suggests his carelessness and negligence. Howsoever liberal approach a Court may adopt in condoning C.R. No.3955 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the delay, there can be no premium on the sheer negligence, irresponsible and casual approach of a litigant. In this view of the matter, no interference in the order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Be that as it may and in the interest of justice, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the order dated 4.1.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari, whereby the fair rent has been increased from Rs.150/- to Rs.650/- per month. It is urged that the criteria followed by the Rent Controller is contrary to the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in “Yoginder Mohan versus Krishan Lal, 2003 (3) Latest Judicial Reports 791”, operative para of which reads as follows: “12. In our view, the Controller would have to take the basic or agreed rent as the basis for determining the fair rent payable on an application under sub-section (2) of Section 4, and he would have to determine the percentage of rise or fall in the general level of the prices for the dates indicated in Section. For determining the percentage of increase, he would have to refer to the All India Whole Sale Price Index Numbers as determined by the Government of India for the calendar year immediately preceding the date of application. Thereupon, the Collector would have to proceed to find out the percentage indicated by this rise or fall in relation to the basic or agreed rent payable by the tenant to the landlord, thus, he would increase the basic or agreed rent by relying on such portion of the Price Index in the above manner to arrive at a final C.R. No.3955 of 2009 (O&M) 4 figure of the fair rent to be paid as rent. In order to ostracize the possibility of any confusion persisting any further, we would demonstrate the application of the above principle in terms of the figures applicable to the present case: Fair rent fixed by the Court vide order dated 30.11.1985 Rs.621.40 Date of which the present application was filed for increase in fair rent 13.1.1995 Agreed or basic rent for the purpose of present petition Rs.621.40 Figure of whole sale Price Index for the year 1984, as reflected in the Price Index determined by the Govt.of India. Rs.604.50 Figure of Price Index as indicated for the year 1994 (immediately) preceding the year of presentation of petition/ application i.e. (1995). Rs.1409.59 Increase in Price Index (1409.59 – 604.5) Rs.805.09 Percentage of difference between two figures of Price Index Numbers 133.18% The Court can grant increase or decrease to the maximum 25% under Section 4 (3) i.e. 25% the percentage of difference between two figures of Price Index Numbers which comes to 33.29% On this basis the increase in fair rent comes to (621.40 x 33.29)/100 206.86” Relying upon the above reproduced illustrative principle, it is argued that the Rent Controller ought to have divided the percentage of difference between two relevant Price Indexes by 25% and not 25% of the difference of the two figures. C.R. No.3955 of 2009 (O&M) 5 In my considered view, Sections 4 & 5 of the Rent Act contemplate two different situations. While Section 4 of the Act pertains to determination of fair rent, Section 5 thereof provides further revision in the fair rent after every five years. The Division Bench in Yoginder Mohan's case (supra) has explained the principle to be followed for determination of the fair rent under Section 4 of the Act without any specific reference to its further revision in terms of Section 5 of the Act, after a period of 5 years. One of the way to be followed by a Rent Controller can be to determine the fair rent and leave the matter there only. The other pragmatic approach can be that if more then two consecutive terms of 5 years each have expired after the last fixation of fair rent, to take such event into consideration and then revise and update the fair rent. The later course would avoid multiplicity of litigation and avoidable harassment to the landlord for the obvious reason that a Court can take notice of consistent rise in the Price Whole Sale Index, leaving not even a remote possibility ever to the decrease in fair rent. This is what precisely appears to have been done by the Rent Controller though not in so many words. Keeping the agreed rent of pre- 1990 as base rent, the rent became due for further revisions in the year 1995 and 2000. The net result would be only, at the best, a marginal difference which, having regard to the present soaring prices, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. C.R. No.3955 of 2009 (O&M) 6 Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. 03-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE