Judgment

UNTWALIA, J. - This is an appeal by special leave by the land lady of a shop situated in Timber market in the town of Hissar in the State of Haryana. Respondent took the shop on rent of Rs. 175/- per month plus the taxes on the basis of a rent note executed by him in favour of the appellant on November 2, 1962. On November 24, 1967, he filed an application under Sec. 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - hereinafter called the Act, for fixation of the fair rent of the building. The Senior Sub Judge, Hissar acting as the Rent controller under the Act, found the evidence adduced by the respondent insufficient to enable him to fix the basic rent under sub-s. (2) of S. 4 of the Act. In that view of the matter, he upheld the contractual rate of rent of Rs. 175/- per month and adding to that Rs. 10.15 paise on account of tax fixed the fair rent at Rs. 185.15 per month. The respondent went up in appeal before the District Judge, Hissar who by his order dated January 16, 1969 allowed the appeal and fixed Rs. 54/- per annum i. e. Rs. 4.50 per month as the fair rent of the buildings. The appellants revision before the High Court was dismissed on April 11, 1969. Hence this appeal.

2. Mr. V. C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the town of Hissar and the locality where the shop is situated had considerably improved after 1st January. 1939. Material improvements were made in the shop premises after that date. The improved structures. counsel submitted, which were standing when the shop was let out on rent were not there in the year 1938. In that view of the matter it could not be held that the prevailing rate of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation during the 12 months prior to the 1st January, 1939 in similar circumstances was Rs. 3/- per month as erroneously held by the District Judge under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Mr. B. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the rent had been fixed taking into account the prevailing rate for the same shop which was in existence before the 1st January, 1939. The phrase "in similar circumstances" occurring in Clause (a) governs only "similar accommodation" and not the word "same". Mr. Sharma further submitted that even assuming to be otherwise, the learned District Judge had arrived at a finding of fact on appreciation of the entire materials in the records of this case, the circumstances prevailing at the time of the making of the application by the respondent for fixation of fair rent were similar to those prevailing before the 1st January, 1939. The finding of fact arrived at by the District Judge could not be and has not been interfered by the High Court in revision. There is no such error of law in the judgments of the either of the Courts below which would justify this Courts arriving at a different conclusion.

3. We shall read the relevant portion of sub-section (2) of Sec. 4 of the Act. It says:

"In determining the fair rent under this section, the Controller shall first fix a basic rent taking into consideration-

(a) the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to the 1st January, 1939: and

(b) the rental value of such building or rented land if entered in property tax assessment register of the municipal, town or notified area committee, cantonment board, as the case may be, relating to the period mentioned in Clause (a)."

Clause (b) admittedly was not applicable to this case as there was no property tax assessed in respect of this building prior to the 1st January, 1939. The decision and the case of fixation of the basic rent had to be judged with reference to Clause (a) only. In our opinion the phrase "in similar circumstances" occurring in the said clause qualifies and governs both the expressions, namely, "the same" and "similar accommodation." For arriving at the figur