1. Petition under Section 4 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act for fixation of fair rent of a shop. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J
Chandan Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Hari Ram – Respondent
Civil Revision No.35 of 2017
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukul Sood
For the Respondents: Bhupinder Gupta, Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukul Sood
For the Respondents: Bhupinder Gupta, Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction in rent control matters is limited to ensuring findings are legal and not perverse; it cannot re-assess evidence unless the lower authority's finding is based on no evidence or is grossly erroneous.
Headnote:(A) Rent Control - Fixation of Fair Rent - Evidence and Admissibility - Where the landlord fails to provide material evidence or proof concerning the prevalent rate of rent in the vicinity, a finding of fair rent based on unsupported figures is erroneous and liable to be modified by the Appellate Authority. (Para 12)
(B) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - The High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Rent Control Acts cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court; its scope is confined to verifying if the finding of fact is according to law, not perverse, and not based on no evidence. (Para 13, 14)
Issues: Whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority reducing the fair rent from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month was legal and based on the evidence on record.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Landlord claimed higher prevalent rent; tenant disputed and argued agreed rent was lower and increased as per Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 9 , 10 )
3. Appellate Authority correctly held that Rent Controller fixed rent without basis, relying on landlord's admission of no evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless finding is perverse, based on no evidence, or causes miscarriage of justice. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Petition dismissed; no infirmity found in Appellate Authority's judgment fixing fair rent. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the scope of interference under revisional jurisdiction in rent control matters?
The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse, based on no evidence, misreads evidence, or is grossly erroneous causing miscarriage of justice. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. Can a court fix fair rent based on a landlord's admission of having no evidence of prevalent rent?
No. Fixing fair rent without any supporting evidence or basis, especially when the landlord admits having no proof, is erroneous. (Para 12 )
Chandan Mehta H….Petitioner Versus Hari Ram ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Ve rma, Judge
Whether approved for reportting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal,
Advocate.
Romesh Verma, Judge( ora l The present petition arises out of judgment as
gpassed by learned Appellate Authority, Solan, District Solan, H.P.
idated 03.12.2016, whereby the appeal filed by the present respondent Hari Ram, was accepted and the order as passed by learned Rent Controller-II, Solan, dated 19.08.2015 was modified and the fair rent of the disputed premises was fixed at Rs.2,500/-
per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner, namely, Shri Chandan Mehta filed an application under Section 4 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for fixation of fair rent before the learned Rent Controller on 21.04.2009. It was averred
::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 20:14:51 :::CIS
2
in the petition that the respondent is liable to pay rent of the shop in question at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, as the rent prevailing in the locality for similar buildings, shops and accommodations is more than Rs.10,000/- per month and the respondent has his own constructed twof buildings in the vicinity, one building is three storied and the other building is four storied. In three storied building, there are two shops and in four storied building, there are also two shops. The same are rented out by the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per shop per month. Hence, the petitioner being the landlord is entitled to fix a fair rent and the same fair rent has not been fixed till date under the releva nt provisions of law. The shop in question is in the occupation of the respondent and the said shop has great commercial potential, The respondent is earning a huge amount from the same shop. The present petitioner has prayed that a fair rent to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per month be fixed in his favour
and against the present respondent.
3. The petition was duly contested by the respondent by filing a detailed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, non-disclosure of better particulars etc. by the present petitioner. On merits, all the allegations and averments as made in the petition were refuted and it was averred that all the
::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 20:14:51 :::CIS
3
contents as made in the petition are wrong and denied. It was stated that the premises were taken on rent and the agreed rent was fixed between the parties at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. Initially, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.300/- per month which was raised from time to time and as pefr the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, the same was increased finally to Rs.900/- per month. Therefore, at the time of creation of tenancy, the rent was increased from time to time and final rent at the rate
of Rs.900/- is being paid by the present respondent.
4. Learned Rent Controller on 11.05.2010, framed
issues in the following manner:
“1. Whether the construction of premises in question was completed after 25.1.1971? OPA
2. Whether the fair rent of premises question is Rs. 10,000/- per month, if not what is the fair rent of i premises in question? OPA
3. Whether the present application is not maintainable?
OPR
4. Whether the petition has not been framed as per rules, if so to its effect? OPP
5. Relief.”
5. Learned Rent Controller directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and finally, vide its judgment dated 19.08.2015 allowed the petition
filed by the present petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 20:14:51 :::CIS
4
6. Learned Rent Controller fixed the rent of the premises at the rate of Rs.6,000/- from the date on which the
present application was filed by the present petitioner.
7. Feeling dissatisfied, the present respondent preferred an appeal in the Court of learfned Appellate Authority,
