JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition is directed against the Order, dated 13th August, 1991, passed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani, and the order, dated 4th January, 1994, passed by the appellate Authority, Bhiwani.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the landlord of the shop in question, situated at Bus-stand, Bhiwani, filed a petition Under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent)& Eviction Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent-tenant for nonpayment of the rent. In those proceedings, the stand taken by the tenant was that initially agreed rent of the shop was Rs. 150/- per month and later on it was increased to Rs. 200/- per month whereas the landlord had been demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. These proceedings culminated into a compromise arrived at between the parties. Thereafter the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. The relevant Rent Controller, reads as under:
“In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and their statements recorded yesterday, the rent of the shop in dispute has been fixed at Rs. 300/-per month including taxes with effect from 1.10.1987.”
3. Thereafter, on 24th November, 1988 the petitioner landlord filed an application Under Section 4 of the Act for enhancement of the rent from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 800/- per month. In this petition, the tenant, in his written statement, took the preliminary objection that the aforesaid application was premature as a period of five years had not elapsed from the date when the rent between the parties was fixed at Rs. 300/- per month with effect from 1st October, 1987 in terms of the compromise mentioned herein above. The learned trial Court accepted the plea of the tenant and held that the case was covered by Section 5 of the Act and no in- crease or decrease in the rent was permissible before the expiry of five years from Ist October, 1987. The. order of the learned trial Court was challenged by the landlord by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority by its judgment dated 4th January, 1994.
4. Ms. Sapra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord submitted that agreed rent between the parties right from Ist February, 1982 had been fixed at Rs. 300/- per month and in fact during the course of proceedings Under Section 13 of Act, the tenant had admitted the rate at rent and had arrived at a compromise. In pursuant to that compromise, he had paid the arrears of rent of the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the date it was due. She also contended that the rate of rent agreed to in the proceedings Under Section 13 of the Act cannot be equated to the proceedings Under Section 4 of the Act.
5. Mr. Mani Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, contended that initially rate of rent of the shop in question was Rs. 150/per month which was increased to Rs. 200/- per month at a later stage. He submitted that it was only in the compromise arrived at between the parties in the proceedings Under Section 13 of the Act that the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 300/per month including taxes with effect from Ist October, 1987. He, therefore, submitted that the landlord cannot be permitted to file an application for increase of rent for a period of five years with effect from 1st October, 1987.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Under Section 5 of the Act, no increase or decrease of the rent is permissible for a period of five years from the date when fair rent of building or rented land has been fixed Under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the fair rent of the shop in the question, strictly speaking, was not fixed Under Section 4 of the Act but the compromise arrived at between the parties which has been reproduced in para 11 of the judgment of the learned appellate Authority, clearly shows that the parties for the first time had agreed that the rent of the shop in dispute shall be Rs. 300/- per month including taxes from Ist October, 1987. Para 12 of the judgment also shows that the rent of the shop in question initially was Rs. 150/- per month and later on it was increased to Rs. 200/- per month. From the exhibit mentioned in this paragraph, it is clear that the rent of the shop was not Rs. 300/- right from 1st April, 1982. Though the landlord had demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month but the tenant had been contending that earlier the rent of the shop was Rs. 200/- per month and it was only from Ist Oct., 1987, that the Rent of the shop in question was fixed at Rs. 300/- per month including taxes.
7. In my considered opinion, the decision dated Ist October, 1987 in terms of the compromise shall amount to determination of fair rent Under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the application, dated 25th November, 1988, filed by the landlord Under Section 4 of the Act is not maintainable till a period of five years elapses from Ist October, 1987.
8. For the reasons recorded herein above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the a same is dismissed with no order as to costs.