1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.1608/2007. Navneet Suchdeva Vs. The Rent Appellate Tribunal & Anr. Date of Order :: 24th July 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. G.R. Goyal, for the respondent No.2. ... The petitioner landlord sought revision of rent Under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') with the submissions that the premises in question, the shop situated at 28, P-Block, Sriganganagar measuring 11 ½ ft. x 12 ½ ft., were let out to the respondent-tenant in the year 1989 on a rent payable at Rs.535/- per month; and that after enforcement of the provisions of the Act of 2001, the respondent-tenant was asked to make payment of revised rent at Rs.1,217/- per month but he has failed to do so. The respondent-tenant alleged that the premises were taken by his father in the year 1971 at a rent of Rs.30/- per month that was increased from time to time and ultimately the rent was being paid at Rs.275/- per month in the year 1987. The tenant further alleged that in the month of December 1989 he had taken the premises on rent from the grand-father of the applicant at Rs.300/- per month; and that about three years back, the grand-father of the applicant has 2 increased the rent to Rs.535/- per month, though the non- applicant has initially taken the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- only. The Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar by its order dated 09.12.2004 (Annex.6), after referring to the rival submissions, found that the earlier tenancy of the father of tenant did not continue uninterrupted and the tenant himself admitted that the premises were taken on rent from the grand-father of the applicant in the month of December 1989. The Tribunal also referred to the submission on behalf of the tenant with reference to the house tax notice Ex.A/1 pertaining to the year 1999-2000 stating annual letting value of the premises at Rs.3,600/-; and observed that the amount so stated by the Municipal Council was relevant only for the purpose of assessment of house tax and not for the purpose of determination of rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. The Tribunal then observed that indisputably the shop was on rent from the year 1989; that the rival parties have stated the rate of rent at Rs.535/- per month and Rs.300/- per month respectively; and, thus, it was established that the rent of the suit premises was somewhere between Rs. 535/- and Rs.300/-. On these consideration, the learned Rent Tribunal fixed the basic rent in the year 1989 at Rs.400/- per month and on that basis proceeded to revise the rent as on 31.03.2003 at Rs.923/- per 3 month; and held that the petitioner-landlord is entitled for revised rent from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 15.09.2003 and to have further revision of rent in accordance with law. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar by the respondent-tenant and the learned Appellate Tribunal observed that though the landlord suggested the initial rent of the premises at Rs.535/- per month but such assertion was not proved by any evidence. The Appellate Tribunal further observed that though the assertion of the tenant about rate of rent at Rs.300/- per month was also not proved by any direct evidence but, with reference to the notice Ex.A/1 issued by the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar stating annual letting value of the premises at Rs.3,600/-, observed that in the circumstances of the case, it was just and proper to accept the said document Ex.A/1; and on that basis held proved the fact that the rent of the premises was Rs.300/- per month as asserted by the tenant in his reply. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not agree with the proposition of the Rent Tribunal putting the rate of rent at Rs.400/- per month because such rate of rent was not established by any material on record. Thus, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar in its impugned order dated 23.03.2006 in Appeal No.11/2005 (Annex.8) has taken the rent of the premises as on 01.01.1989 at Rs.300/- per month and on that basis has permitted revision of rent as on 4 31.03.2003 at Rs.692/- per month. Aggrieved, the landlord has preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has viewed the case from an altogether wrong angle; that the Appellate Tribunal has not considered that the tenant has failed to establish his allegations of initial rent being Rs.30/- per month or Rs.300/- per month and, on the contrary, the petitioner has specifically proved with his affidavit that the premises were let out to the non-applicant in the year 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.535/-. Learned counsel contended that for want of specific evidence in rebuttal, there was no reason for not allowing revision of rent while taking the basic rent Rs.535/-. Learned counsel further contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has been in error in fixing the initial rent at Rs.300/- per month merely on the basis of a document issued by the Municipal Council for the purpose of assessment of house tax that cannot form the basis of determination of actual rent. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains meritless and deserves to be dismissed. In respect of the assertion of the petitioner that initial rent was Rs.535/- per month, it has been concurrently found by both the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal that there is 5 no corroborative evidence in support of such assertion. Such finding, of the petitioner having failed to establish the basic rent at Rs.535/- per month, emanates from the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 09.12.2004 itself wherein the Tribunal has proceeded to observe that in view of the rival assertions, the rent of the premises may be taken at Rs.400/- per month. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has categorically found that there is no evidence in support of such assertion of the petitioner that the initial rent was Rs.535/- per month. Such finding of fact after consideration of material on record does not suffer from any error and does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction. So far the Rent Tribunal's order putting the rent at Rs.400/- per month is concerned, the same was obviously incorrect and was liable to be interfered with. The proposition stated by the Tribunal in fixing the initial rent at Rs.400/- per month seems rather strange. The Tribunal has merely referred to the rival contentions of the rent being Rs.535/- per month as per the landlord and being Rs.300/- as per the tenant and has deduced that the rent was somewhere between Rs.535/- and Rs.300/-, and then has observed that looking to the normally prevalent rate of rent, it may be taken proved that rate of rent was Rs.400/- per month in the year 1989. Such proposition is not correct even on conjectures what to say of legal inference. 6 It is true that the tenant has also not been able to adduce any direct evidence in support of his assertion of the rent being Rs.300/- per month but in the circumstances of the case, the document showing the annual letting value of the premises, as assessed by the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar in the year 1999-2000 at Rs.3,600/- became directly relevant and could not have been ignored. Noticeable it is that the annual letting value stated in the said document pertaining to the year 1999-2000 at Rs.3,600/- per annum has been applied by the Appellate Rent Tribunal for assessing the rent for the year 1989, i.e., nearly 10 years before. The assessment as made by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be lesser than that of reasonable rate of rent in this case. The document Ex.A/1 pertaining to house- tax had its relevance in the fact situation of this case and had wrongly been ignored from consideration by the Rent Tribunal; and there does not appear any error if the Appellate Rent Tribunal has taken the same into consideration. This Court is satisfied that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has not committed any illegality or error in permitting revision of rent while taking the basic rent at Rs.300/- per month; and there is no scope for interference in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//