JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant.
2. In brief, the facts are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the ‘landlord’) gave on rent a shop bearing municipal unit No. 101, situated in municipal area of Rori Bazar, Sirsa, to the tenant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’) on 23.7.1980. The yearly rent was Rs.12,500/-. Rent note Ex. -1 was duly executed which was for the duration of one year. On 5.3.1987 the landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent of the shop in question in terms of Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
3. The Rent Controller taking the base year of 1981 determined that the All India Wholesale price Index number as determined by the Government was 73.40 in the year 1979 and the same was 140.0 in the year 1987. Thus, there was an increase of 66.60 in the price index from the year 1979 to the year 1987. The Rent Controller further observed that 25 of 66.60 was 16.5 and, therefore, he allowed an increase of Rs. 2062-50 over the amount of basic rent in the sum of Rs. 12,500/-. The fair rent was fixed at Rs. 14,562.50P.
4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller both the tenant and the landlord filed separate rent appeals which were disposed of by the Appellate Authority by the same judgment. While the appeal filed by the landlord was partly accepted. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed. It was concluded by the Appellate Authority that the Rent Controller wrongly took into consideration the base year to be 1981 as the disputed premises had been let out in the year 1980. Taking the base year 1970-71, he determined that the all India Wholesale Price Index in tile year 1980 when the shop in question was let out i.e. when the parties had agreed for Rs.12,500/- per annum as rent, was 248.1. The petition under Section 4 of the Act was instituted in the year 1987. In terms of Section 4(3) of the Act the rise in the price index was calculated in the preceding year i.e. 1986. On the basis of the price index in the year 1986, he determined that the landlord was entitled to an increase of Rs.3875/- per annum. Thus, the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority, came to Rs.16,375/-
5. Being aggrieved the tenant has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the tenant has argued that the Rent Controller has taken the base year to be 1981 and determined the fair rent of the shop in question in accordance with law. He further argued that the Appellate Authority has erred while taking into consideration the base year to be 1970-71 for determining the fair rent of the shop in question. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the shop in dispute had been let out in the year 1980 and therefore, 1981 could not be taken as a base year for determining the fair rent of the demised premises. Taking 1970-71 to be the base year, the price index in the year 1980 i.e. when the shop was let out and the parties had agreed for Rs.12,500/- per annum as rent, was 248.1. These figures have been taken from the All India Wholesale Price Index, which is printed in the Journal Section of 1981 Haryana Rent Reporter. The petition under Section 4 of the Act was instituted in the year 1987. The position of the Price Index in the preceding year i.e. 1986 is to be taken into consideration to calculate the price rise in terms of Section 4(3) of the Act. Taking the base year 1970-71, the price index in the year 1986 was 372.2. Thus, the price index from 248.1 rose to 372.2 during the period of 1980 to 1986. The increase during this period comes to 124.1%. Under Section 4(3) of the Act, the Rent Controller could allow 25% of this increase over the amount of basic rent for calculating the fair rent. Hence, 25% of 124.1% comes to 31% for calculating the fair rent. Thus, giving an increase of 31% in the amount of basic rent, the increase in rent comes to Rs.3875/-which has rightly been calculated by the Appellate Authority. I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the Appellate Authority as well as the calculation made by him.
6. For the reasons stated above, I find ho merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.