ORDER

N. K. Sud, J. – This civil revision is directed against the order dated 9.3.1987 of the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra dismissing the appeal of the landlord-petitioners against the order of the Rent Controller, Kaithal dated 6.1.1984.

2. The petitioners had filed an application for fixation of fair rent under section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the “Act”) on 20.12.1980. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 6.1.1984 determined the fair rent at Rs. 189 per year i.e. Rs. 15.75 Ps. per month besides house tax. The appeal of the landlord-petitioners against the above determination has been dismissed vide the impugned order.

3. Mr. Jaswal, Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the basic approach of both the authorities below in proceeding to determine the fair rent by adopting Rs. 15/- per month as the basic rent is contrary to law. He points out that the demised premises had been let out on 1.1.1969 for a period of one year i.e. upto 31.12.1969 at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. However, the tenant continued to occupy the said shop by paying the same amount of rent even after the expiry of the period of lease. In such circumstances, learned counsel contends that the tenant ceased to be a contractual tenant and became a statutory tenant and, therefore, the basic rent could not be adopted at Rs. 15/- per month.

4. I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. This issue has already been decided by this Court in Gobind Ram v. Kanshi Ram, 2002 HRR 37 in which it was held that if there was no subsisting agreement of tenancy on the date on which the fair rent had to be fixed, the rate of rent mentioned in the agreement prior thereto could not be said to be the rent agreed between the landlord and the tenant. In the present case also, there was no subsisting agreement between the parties when the application for determination of fair rent had been filed on 20.12.1980. Thus, the approach of both the Courts below in adopting the rent on the basis of agreement which was subsisting upto 3.12.1969 as the basic rent was totally erroneous.

5. In view of the above, civil revision is allowed. The impugned orders of the Rent Controller dated 6.1.1984 and of the Appellate Authority dated 9.3.1987 are set aside and the mater is remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh determination of the fair rent in accordance with law.

6. Since no one has put in appearance for the respondents, there shall be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.

********