JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Tenant-petitioner has filed this revision against Appellate Authority’s order dated August 4, 1987, whereby he has dismissed the appeal by affirming the Rent Controller’s order dated September 13, 1986, passed under Section 4(2) (a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (in short, the Act).
2. Landlord-respondents filed a petition for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller alleging that the building was constructed in the year 1956. The suit shop was demised to the tenant-petition at a monthly rent of Rs. 16.67 paise plus house tax. They also averred that in the year 1962, the rent of such shops in the locality was Rs. 100/- per month. On that basis they claimed fixation of fair rent.
3. The tenant-petitioner contested the petition. The Rent Controller framed issues. Parties adduced evidence.
4. The Rent Controller, relying on the statement of A.W.-1 Baldu Ram, which was supported by documentary evidence Exhibits A-8 to A-10 and A-12 held that in 1962 another shop in the same locality was leased out at Rs. 100/- per month and still another held shop was leased out at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. Thus, he determined the basis rent of the disputed shop under Section 4(3) of the Act and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 129.81 paise per month. Tenant’s appeal was also rejected.
5. The tenant-petitioner’s learned counsel contended that the Rent Controller has fallen into an error in fixing the rent under Section 4(2) (a) of the Act, while in this case fair rent should have been fixed under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, as the demised shop was leased out to the tenant-petitioner at the rate of Rs. 16.67. As this was the agreed rent between the parties, fair rent should have been assessed taking this amount as the basic rent. His another argument is that the Rent Controller has relied on documents exhibits A-8 to A-10 and A-12. He submitted that these documents were not proved as per law. Exhibit A-8 was a photostat copy of the document and should not have been taken into consideration by the Rent Controller. In support of his contention he has relied on Hakam Dev v. Tek Chand, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 451 and Malik Chand v. Ram Sarup Gupta, (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 632.
6. Landlord-respondents’ learned counsel supported the orders passed by the Courts below and contended that the Rent Controller has rightly considered Rs. 100/- per month as the basic rent and has rightly determined the fair rent at Rs. 129.81 paise.
7. The submission of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that the fair rent should have been fixed under Section 4(2) (b) of the Act is devoid of any substance. Section 4(2) (b) runs as under :-
“(b) in respect of the building the construction where of is completed after the 31st day of December, 1961 or land let out after the said date, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant proceeding the date of the application or where no rent has been agreed upon, the basic rent shall be determined on the basis of the rent prevailing in the locality for similar building or rented land at the date of application.”
8. Admittedly, this building was constructed before December 31, 1961. Thus, it is obvious that the provisions of Section 4(2)(b) are inapplicable in this case. For determining fair rent of a building which is constructed on or before December 31, 1961, the provisions of Section 4(2)(a) are applicable. In Malik Chand’s case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has interpreted these provisions and has held that the Legislature while substituting old section 4(2) of the Act, divided the buildings in two parts for determination of fair rent, viz., (i) these buildings which were completed on or before 31st day of December, 1961, and (ii) the buildings which were completed after the 31st day of December, 1961. The Legislature in the second category of buildings has provided that for determination of the basic rent, the agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant preceding the date of application may be considered as the basic rent but this criteria of determination of basic rent to be the agreed rent has not been provided in the first category of buildings. For the first category of buildings, the basic rent is to be determined on the basis of the prevailing rent in the locality for the similar building which is let out to a new tenant during the year 1962.
9. In Hakam Dev’s case (supra) also the building was constructed before December 1961. It was let out in the year 1951-52 at Rs. 1,000/-. As the landlord failed to prove prevailing rent of similar type in the year 1962, basic rent was treated as Rs. 1,000/- and accordingly fair rent was fixed.
10. In this case A.W.-1 Ruldu Ram stated on oath that another shop in the same locality was leased out in the year 1962 to Ramesh Metal Works at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. In support of his oral testimony he placed reliance on documents Exhibits A-8 to A-10 (Exhibit A-8 is the photo copy of rent note and Exhibits A-9 and A-10 are the rent receipts). He was not cross-examinated on this point. No objection was raised with regard to accepting these documents on record. This witness also stated on oath that another half shop vide document Exhibit A-11 was leased out to a tenant in the year 1962 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. Thus by adducing this evidence the landlord-respondents proved that in the year 1962 other such shops in the same locality were demised at the rate of Rs. 80/- or Rs. 100/- per month. There was no rebuttal of this evidence. Thus, the Rent Controller rightly relied on this evidence.
11. So far as the wrong reception of the aforementioned documents in evidence is concerned memorandum of appeal is also placed on record. Even while filing appeal before the Appellate Authority, no such objection was taken by the tenant-petitioner’s counsel. Hence in the revision such a plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time. Even otherwise as I have discussed above, the above facts were proved by the oral testimony of P.W.-1 Ruldu Ram. The aforementioned documentary evidence was a corroborative piece of evidence. Thus, in my considered view, the Courts below have not fallen into any error in passing the impugned orders.
12. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision, it is hereby dismissed.