IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.35 of 2017 Decided on: 31.03.2026 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 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 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.

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, Solan, District Solan, on 03.06.