The court emphasized the limited grounds for revision under the Rent Act and the need to maintain a distinction between revision and appeal.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, `the Act) challenges order dated 18.8.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar accepting the appeal of the tenant-respondent in which the order dated 16.3.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar was impugned. This Rent Controller on an application filed by the tenant-respondent under Section 4 of the Act seeking fixation of fair rent has concluded that no documentary evidence to prove the rate of rent of the demised shop in the year 1938-39 was produced and that there has been improvement in the locality after 1938-39. On the aforementioned basis, the Rent Controller has given the finding that both the ingredients of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act have not been fulfilled and, therefore, the basic rent of the demised shop could not be fixed. The Rent Controller further concluded that the shop in dispute is taken by the tenant-respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- and in the absence of fixation of basic rent, the agreed rent has to be considered as fair rent with regard to the demised shop. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant-respondent filed an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, Amritsar. The Appellate Authority after detailed discussion reached the conclusion that the shop must be in existence in the year 1938-39 and the claim of the landlord-petitioner that the shop was constructed in the year 1945-46 has been proved to be wrong. The rent of the demised shop in the year 1940 was Rs. 22/- and the same should have been considered as the basic rent. The findings of the Rent Controller were thus reversed. The aforementioned conclusion drawn by the learned Appellate Authority is based on the house tax assessment register produced by the tenant-respondent showing that M/s. Bhai Sahib Singh Avtar Singh used to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 264/- per annum and there was no specific denial in this regard. The copy of the assessment register has been placed on record as Ex.AW-2/1. In this regard the view of the Appellate Authority reads as under :-

".......... I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and in my view when there was a specific reference to the possession of the shop by Mohan Singh at a particular time and the rate of rent being paid by him and also to M/s. Sahib Singh Avtar Singh, it was the duty of the respdt. to make a clear denial whether the premises in dispute were infact occupied by these persons at any time or not. In the circumstances, it must be concluded that the denial so far as the possession of the premises at certain times by Mohan Singh and Bhai Sahib Singh and Avtar Singh is concerned, is not specific and the presumption must be drawn against the respondent."

2. The learned Appellate Authority also rejected the stand of the landlord- petitioner that the demised shops were constructed in the year 1945-46 in the following words :-

"...... There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel. Having regard to the nature of the plea in the written statement, what can be inferred is that the stand of the respdt. is that shops were constructed in the year 1945-46. It will not be possible to deduce that earlier to the said period, there were certainly shops there and the same were demolished at any stage and then the shops were reconstructed. If such had been the stand of the resptd., that the shops which were in existence before the year 1945-46 were demolished and were re-constructed, then clear allegation would have been made in the written statement."

3. Concluding that the demised shop existed in the year 1938 and would be fetching the basic rent of Rs. 22/-, the Appellate Authority recorded the following findings :-

"Now, it is to be seen whether the shop in question did exist in the year 1938 or not. My attention is invited to Ex.AW2/1 which is certified copy of the property t