JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. Landlord in this revision petition is impugning the finding of the Authorities below whereby fair rent of the shop was fixed at Rs. 90/- per month,. which rent the respondent was already paying to the landlord.
2. The shop in dispute is situated at Patiala Chowk, Jind. Landlord petitioner filed a petition under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (briefly ‘the Act’) for fixation of fair rent of the shop on the ground that the shop was let out to the respondent tenant at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month in the year 1975 According to the landlord, after letting out of the shop to the respondent, rates of rent have gone very high, as similar shops of the similar accommodation in the same locality are fetching at least Rs. 400/ for one month, but the respondent has been continuing to pay Rs. 90/- par month, which is neither agreed nor fair rent Respondent in his written statement denied that the rent was fixed at Rs. 90/- in the year 1975. According to the respondent, rent in the year 1975 was Rs. 50/, whereafter it was increased to Rs. 70/- and again in November, 1982, rent was increased to Rs. 90/- per month He also denied that the shops in the vicinity are fetching rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. According to him, rate of rent of the shops similar to the shop in dispute are not more than Rs. 707-or Rs, 80/- par month. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found that the shops adjoining the shop in dispute are on rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- or Rs. 70/ per month, whereas the respondent is paying Rs. 90/- per month. Accordingly, it was held that the fair rent of the shop in dispute cannot be more than Rs. 90/- per month. On appeal by the landlord, order of the Rent Controller was affirmed. Landlord has now impugned the said order in this Court
3. Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record According to him, the other shops in the vicinity are fetching rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month or more than that, and, therefore, finding of the Authorities below on this count be sustained.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. Admittedly, no rent note was executed at the time the shop was let out to the respondent. No receipt has come on record evidencing the rate of rent. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority on appreciation of the oral evidence, have returned a firm finding of fact with regard to rate of rent, which calls for no interference by this Court, The Appellate Authority found that the rent of the shops adjoining the shop in dispute is not more than Rs. 60/- or Rs. 70/- per month, whereas respondent was paying Rs. 90/- per month. In this view of the matter, to my mind, the fair rent of the shop in dispute was rightly fixed at Rs. 90/- per month.
5. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
