CR No.5527 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:05.01.2011. S.C.Bhandari ...Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision being aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala dated 14.05.2010 by which the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 28.05.2009 in his favour has been set aside. In brief, the tenant/petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] for fixation of fair rent in respect of portion of the premises bearing No.66, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt. The learned Rent Controller assessed the basic rent @ `2,500/- per month and revised it @ `2,610/- per month from the date of the filing of the application. The said order of the learned Rent Controller, however, is set aside by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the demised premises was rented out in the April 2003 @ `2,500/- per month which was increased by 10% in April 2004 and further by 10% in April 2005 which comes to `3,000/- per month and the said amount of rent was paid by the tenant/petitioner for one year before filing the application on 03.08.2006 for CR No.5527 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** fixation of fair rent. It was held that for all intents and purposes, the amount of `3,000/- per month shall be the basic rent and not `2,500/- per month which was the rent in the year 2003 and not the rent before the filing of the application. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Non Resident Indian who had been paying the rent @ `3,000/- per month w.e.f. April 2005 and paid it for one year just in order to protect his tenancy, otherwise he was not liable to pay more than `2,500/- per month on which the demised premises was let out. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is no substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner because admittedly the petitioner had been paying rent @ `3,000/- per month prior to the filing of the application for fixation of fair rent on 03.08.2006 and in that condition, the rent of `2,500/- per month, on which the demised premises was originally let out in the year 2003, cannot be considered to be the basic rent for the purpose of re-assessment of fair rent. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. January 05, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE