Mr. Mahajan took us to the Rent Note executed by the respondent, the spot inspection report dated 11.5.1967 of the then Sub-Judge, Hiosar, and other relevant pieces of evidence. He submitted that the Rent Controller was right in his view that the evidence on both the relevant points under clause (a) was missing and in absence of such evidence he was justified in upholding the agreed rate of rent. \Ve have given due consideration to the matter after careful perusal of all the three judgments, namely, those of the Rent Controller, the District Judge and the High Court. We have also perused with care the evidence and the materials which were placed before us on behalf of the parties. We felt constrained to do so especially in this case, as the fair rent fixed by the District Judge from the date of the filing of the application by the respondent was so shockingly low as compared to the agreed rate of rent that apparently it appeared that great injustice had been done to the land-lady. On the other hand, the agreed rate of rent on the facts and in the circumstances of the case appeared to be exorbitantly high. It was not possible in the teeth of the law which is engrafted in sec'tion 4 of the Act to strike a mean and make any other kind of just or proper order. Ultimately we felt constrained to arrive at the conclusion, though somewhat reluctantly and hesitatingly, 'that the findings of fact arrived at by the District Judge as affirmed by the Hi12;h Court do not suffer from any infirmity of law to enable us to interfere with his order. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the respondent and believing it the findin!l recorded by the District Judge is that the respondent had succeeded! in proving the prevailing rate of rent of the demised premises to be Rs. 36/- per annum and it was so in similar circumstances during the year 1938. Over the said prevailing rate, he has allowed the increase of 50% in accordance with· sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Act. The High Court in revision has affirmed the decision of the District Judge on the question of fixation of basic rent. We do not find any justificaion to inerfere with it. We would, however, change the date of fixal!on of fair rent payable by the respondent to the appellant. Althoui:h: in terms, the. fourth section of the Act does not say as to from which dte. the fair rent fixed has to come in force, ordinarily and generally it 1s to be from the date of the application. But there may be circumstances justifying the fixation of another date. We think there are special circumstances existing in this case. The Rent Controller had upheld the agreed rate of rent. The District Judge fixed the fir rent _in his appellate orded passed on January 16, 1969. We thmk m the circumstances of this case the date of the order of the DistriCt Judge would be an appropriate one for enforcement of the fair rent as fixed by him. We, accordingly, modify the order to this
