Allowed

(O&M)Ram Kumar Soni v. Raj Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2013CR/1154/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court held that agreed rent rate constitutes basic rent under Section 4(2)(b) of Haryana Urban Rent Act 1973. Fixed rent based on 10x10 proportion was set aside and case remitted for redetermination using agreed rent of Rs. 2500 from 1996.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Courts below set aside; matter remitted to Rent Controller to calculate fair rent based on basic rent of Rs. 2500 from 1996.

(O&M)Ram Kumar Soni Vs Raj Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.R. No.1154 of 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.1154 of 2007 Date of Decision.22.01.2013

¶5

Ram Kumar Soni son of Shri Moman Chand Soni

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Raj Kumar son of Shri Suraj Bhan

¶9

.......Respondent

¶10

Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Navjot Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

The point involved in this case was the manner of fixation of fair rent. The issue was whether the fair rent should be fixed with reference to the basic rent that was agreed to between the parties or the Court would have a right of determination of fair rent depending on the market rent of what the property could have fetched if the property were let out. This point has been considered on a reference to the Full Bench in Ashrafi Devi Memorial Charitable Trust Vs. Ram Kumar 2009(1) PLR 59 where the Full Bench held that agreed rate of rent has to be regarded as the basic rent within the meaning of Section 4(2)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The Rent Controller has taken evidence of the landlord that a property of a dimension of 10'x10' fetched a particular rent and has worked out a fair

¶19

-2-

¶20

C.R. No.1154 of 2007

¶21

rent on the said basis. It does not conform to the manner of fixation of rent as contemplated by Act and out of sync with the law laid down by the Full Bench referred to above.

¶22

The orders of the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller for redetermination of fair rent by taking the basic rent at ` 2500/- from the year 1996 and calculate the fair rent taking the year of institution of the petition as relevant for its determination. The impugned orders are set aside and the revision is allowed and remitted for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above.

¶23

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶24

January 22, 2013 Pankaj*

(O&M)Ram Kumar Soni v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Ram Kumar Soni v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdev Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Bal Kishan Garodia Vs M/S East India Fabrics Mfg Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Anuradha Tuteja Vs Lalit Tuteja

M/S Tara Feed Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Chd-Ii and Anr.

Shorab Kaplash Vs Jony Kumar

Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs Sita Ram Gupta and Ors.