Civil Revision No.6803 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6803 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:05.02.2009 M/s Jain Instruments .............. Petitioner Vs. Shri Devinder Singh Sandhu .............Respondent Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The landlord's application for fixation of fair rent was ordered by the Rent Controller determining the fair rent to be Rs.697/- per month. The decision was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. While fixing the fair rent, the Rent Controller had taken note of the fact that tenant had come by possession as such in the year 1980 and by mutual consent, rent had been increased periodically and in the year 1987, it had been increased to Rs.535/-. The tenant had two objections that there was dispute between the petitioner and his mother as to who was entitled to collect the rent and that further the age of the building had not been properly set forth in the petition as to whether the construction had been there even prior 31.12.1961 or afterwards. This, according to tenant, held an important bearing on how the rent was to be determined. Section 4(2)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 holds that if the construction had been completed on or before 31.12.1961, the rent prevailing in the locality in the similar building let out to a new tenant during the year 1962, shall be the basic rent. Section 4(3) gives a formula in Civil Revision No.6803 of 2008 (O&M) -2- fixing the fair rent by giving the power to the Rent Controller to allow an increase or decrease on the basic rent not exceeding 25% of the rise or fall in the general level of price in accordance with the average of All India Wholesale Price Index Numbers. The Rent Controller did not want to go into the issue particularly in view of the fact that the landlord and tenant had by mutual consent increased the rent at Rs.535/- per month in the year 1987 and this agreed rent could be safely taken as the basic rent. Considering the fact by the application of the formula for determination of rent, the agreed rent of Rs.535/- in the year 1987 was held to be increased only marginally and the fair rent was determined at Rs.697/-, I do not want to reopen the issue in revision as to the age of the construction. The increase of rent itself is marginal and considering the prevailing rentals, the amount of Rs.697/- is hardly a case where the issue about the relevance of the age of the construction should be taken up. 3. The petition regarding the inter se dispute between the mother and the son itself assumes no significance, particularly when it is brought out in evidence and adverted to by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the mother was not shown to have objected to the payment of rent to her son. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have also observed that the fixation of fair rent was to a building and it was irrelevant to enter into a controversy of alleged inter se dispute between the mother and son claiming respectively to be the landlord for premises. 4. The decisions rendered by the Courts below contain no illegality or impropriety and there is no scope for interference in revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) February 05, 2009 JUDGE Pankaj*