Civil Revision No. 5679 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5679 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.12.2008 Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust (Registered), Karnal …Petitioner Versus Chander Kishore ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust (Registered), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”) through Jai Parkash Sharma, one of its Member Trustee and Property Manager, has filed the present revision petition aggrieved against the order of two Courts below whereby fair rent has been determined. It was averred that the landlord is a registered Trust and Jai Parkash Sharma had been duly authorized to institute the eviction petition. It was further averred in the eviction petition that respondent- tenant was inducted in December 1997. The fair rent of the demised shop was fixed under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as Rs.393/- vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2000. An appeal was filed which Civil Revision No. 5679 of 2008 2 was dismissed. A prayer was made that since there was no agreed rent between the parties, therefore, the basic rent as well as the fair rent of the demised premises was required to be fixed. It was stated that the shop is situated in the market area and the prevailing rent is between Rs.2,640/- to Rs.3,960/-. It is further stated that General Bus Stand, Karnal, is situated nearby and for similar shops in the locality, the landlords have been getting Rs.5,000/- as rent. A written statement was filed in which locus standi of the petitioner was disputed. On merits, it was stated that the fair rent has been determined by the Court as Rs.393/-, therefore, the same is to be taken as basic rent for fixation of fair rent. It was stated that the fair rent determined by the Court vide order dated 17.10.2000 is to be construed as agreed rent between the parties. After completion of pleadings, learned Rent Controller had drawn the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for fair rent of the demised premises on the grounds as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the present petition is not legally maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present petition? OPR 4. Whether the petition has not been filed by the legally authorized person? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of Civil Revision No. 5679 of 2008 3 action? OPR 6. Relief. Landlord examined four witnesses and also placed various documents on the record. After noticing the rival submissions, learned Rent Controller held, that the earlier order dated 17.10.2000 of learned Rent Controller fixing Rs.393/- as fair rent was assailed before learned Appellate Authority, where the landlord failed, therefore, fair rent fixed by learned Rent Controller on 17.10.2000 had attained finality and Rs.393/- is to be accepted as agreed/basic rent. A formula which has been deviced by the Division Bench of this Court in Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal (2000-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 738 and relied in various Single Bench judgments of this Court, the Court below in consonance with the same revised the rent and determined fair rent to be Rs.384/-. Grievance of the petitioner before learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority was that the rent determined by learned Rent Controller in earlier litigation on 17.10.2000 cannot be taken as a basic or agreed rent, as the prevailing rent in the market from the evidence adduced by the landlord is to be determined as basic rent. It was contended before the Courts below and before me that from the evidence adduced by the landlord the Court should have made an endeavour to determine the market rent. Once market rent is established, same ought to be assumed as basic rent. This argument cannot be accepted because of inherent fallacies. There is a statutory provision i.e. Section 4 of the Act which states as to how the basic rent is to be fixed. Section 4 sub section (2) of Civil Revision No. 5679 of 2008 4 the Act specifically state for those buildings which were constructed after 31.10.1961 or let out after that date. Basic rent is to be taken as a rent agreed between the parties. Whereas in year 2000 Court had determined the fair rent and the same has been accepted by the parties and every month the same was paid as a rent. It indeed is a basic or agreed rent. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that every time when the rent is to be revised the Court has to determine the agreed or basic rent afresh by taking prevailing market rent as a criteria. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment Ishwar Swaroop Sharma v. Jagmohan Lal 2002(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 649. A perusal of the judgment show that the argument raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 16, 2008 “DK”