Jasbir Singh, J.
1. Petitioner, landlady filed an application before the Rent Controller for determination of fair rent under Section 4 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was the case of the petitioner that respondent was a statutory tenant in respect of one shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 55/-. It was further stated that initially, this shop was let out to the father of the respondent in or about the year 1953 on a monthly rent of Rs. 21.25. Subsequently, it was increased to Rs. 55/- per month in the year 1953 and was let out to respondent's father. It was also pleaded that prevailing rent of similar shop in locality was the same at that time but the rent of a similar shop let out in the year 1961-62, to a new tenant, was definitely much higher. By stating these facts, it was prayed that fair rent be calculated as per law, on the basis of original rent, fixed at the rate of Rs. 21.25 and the increase in rent, would be 25% of the Price Index between the year 1953 to 1984. It was further stated that if rate of rent is calculated, as per the facts mentioned above, it will come to Rs. 171.25 per month.
2. Upon notice, respondent put up their appearance and by filing written statement, controverted the averments made by the petitioner/landlady. It was averred that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month as rent and Rs. 5/- as house tax. It was further stated that shop in dispute was constructed much prior to year 1962. By referring to those facts, it was mentioned that the rate of rent of similar shop in the year 1961-1962 was Rs. 21.25 and increase in price index to be calculated in this case is to be taken note of since 1963 and not from 1953. It was denied that fair rent of the shop would be Rs. 171.25, as stated by the petitioner/landlady.
3. Regarding rent, Rent Controller framed following two issues;-
(1) What is the basic rent? OPA
(2) What is the fair rent? OPA
4. Therefore, both the parties led their evidence and after evaluating the evidence, application was accepted and Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the fair rent of the shop in question was Rs. 53.52, besides house tax, from the date of the application i.e. 6.8.1985.
5. Petitioner/landlady, not satisfied with the order passed, filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed, vide order dated 26.7.1988. Hence, this revision petition.
6. Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that reasoning given and findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and lower appellate authority are not correct and justified. He further contended that in this case, price index for calculation of fair rent has to be taken note from the year 1953 and not from the year 1963, as has been done and prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller and lower appellate authority and that the revision petition be allowed.
7. Records have been perused with the assistance of counsel for the petitioner.
8. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the records of this case, this court is of the opinion that the opinion arrived at by both the courts below is perfectly justified. It is apparent that both the parties had admitted that the shop was constructed near or about in year 1962. Both the courts below had also found it, as a matter of fact, that there is hardly any evidence on record to suggest as to what was the prevailing rate of rent of a similar shop in the locality, in the year 1962. It is also admitted case of both the parties that in the year 1978, rate of rent was increased and was fixed at Rs. 55/- per month. After discussing evidence on record, appellate court below, opined as under:-
'17. In my opinion, the Rent Controller has taken a correct view of the matterwhile allowing the increase of 25 percent of the rise in All India Wholesale PriceIndex number on the Basic rent which comes to Rs. 166.6 percent on the basis rent of Rs. 20/- per month and that increase does not exceed more than Rs. 33.32 paise. So, theRent Controller has rightly fixed the fair rent of the premises in question at Rs. 53.32paise besides house tax from the date of filing of the Application i.e. from 6.8.1985.'
9. This Court feels that opinion arrived at by both the courts below is perfectly justified. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to indicate any legal infirmity in the same onthe basis of which any interference can be made by this Court in findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below.