1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2838 OF 2010 (Arvind s/o Giridharrao Jirapure & Anr. vs. The Additional Collector, Yavatmal & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 23, 2010. Heard Shri Khandalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Wasnik, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2. The contention is, by placing reliance upon photostat copies of agreement, rent has been increased from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- that too from 1992. The learned AGP has pointed out that the application was filed by Respondent No. 1 for determination of fair rent on 22.02.1992 and hence from that date, rent has been fixed. With the assistance of Shri Khandalkar, learned counsel, I have perused the papers. No grievance has been made either before Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority about the use of photostat copies of documents. The Rent Controller has found that rent of Rs.300/- per month was insufficient and also recorded a conclusion that the material on record reveal that premises in dispute can fetch rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, he has granted revised 2 rent of Rs.1,000/- per month only. The application was filed on 22.02.1992 and hence fair rent has been fixed on that date. It is apparent that Respondent No. 1 felt in 1992 that rent being received by him is insufficient and, therefore, he filed proceedings for determination of fair rent. The proceedings were not filed for determination of fair rent to be made applicable at some future point of time. I, therefore, do not find any case made out, warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE *GS.