Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.:- This revision petition filed by the tenant arises out of the judgment dated 12.5.2004 passed by the appellate authority whereby the judgment dated 21.1.2003 passed by the Rent Controller allowing the petition filed by the landlord under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short “the Act”) was modified by reducing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller from Rs. 1802/- to Rs. 1560/- per month.

2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for disposal of the present revision petition as mentioned therein are that the shop in question situated in the urban area of Safidon at Railway Road was rented out to petitioner-Bharat Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- vide agreement dated 5.1.1989. In the said locality, the rate of rent of the shops was about Rs. 3500/- per month. Accordingly, the landlords filed a petition under Section 4 of the Act on 6.10.2001 for fixation of fair rent of the shop in question. Upon notice, the tenant filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. The averments made in the petition were controverted by the tenant and a prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. Rejoinder to the written statement was also filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

“1. What is the basic rent? OPA

2. What should be the fair rent? OPA

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Relief.”

3. On appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller under issue No.1 held the basic rent to be Rs. 1200/- per month. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the landlords fixing the fair rent to be Rs. 1802/- per month. Issue No.3 was decided against the tenant. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 21.1.2003 allowed the petition filed under Section 4 of the Act by fixing the fair rent of the shop in dispute at Rs. 1802/- per month. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant took the matter in appeal and the appellate authority vide judgment dated 12.5.2004 modified the judgment of the Rent Controller and fixed the fair rent of the demised premises at Rs. 1560/- per month instead of Rs. 1802/- per month fixed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, a duty was cast upon the landlordrespondent to have shown that the demised building was constructed after 1961. According to the learned counsel, it was thereafter that the fair rent could have been assessed under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act. It was urged that the authorities below have erred in assessing rent under Section 4(2) by resorting to Clause (b) whereas the same was required to be done under Clause (a) of Section 4(2) of the Act as the petitioner had not specifically averred and proved that the building was constructed after 31.12.1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in Smt. Rama Wati alias Ramo Devi v. Sat Parkash of Thanesar 1989 HRR 71 and Malik Chand v. Ram Sarup Gupta 1990(2) PLR 632.

5. On the other hand, the landlord-respondent submitted that the fair rent assessed by the appellate authority was correct. He referred to the statement of the tenant Bharat Lal, who appeared as RW4 and stated that the rent of similar shop was Rs. 1000-1200 and there was no other shop in the market on the railway road which was more than 15 to 20 years old and rate of rent was Rs. 2500-3000. It was urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the light of this statement, it has rightly been held that the building in question was constructed only 15 to 20 years back i.e. much after 31.12.1961.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. It would be expedient to refer to Section 4 of the Act which specifies the method of determination of fair rent, the relevant portion of which reads thus:-

“4.