IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.35 of 2017 Decided on: 31.03.2026 Chandan Mehta ….Petitioner Versus Hari Ram ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 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( oral ) The present petition arises out of judgment as passed by learned Appellate Authority, Solan, District Solan, H.P. dated 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 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 two 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 relevant 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 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 per 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 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. 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 learned Appellate Authority, Solan, District Solan, on 03.06.2016. Learned Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 03.12.2016 accepted the appeal as preferred by the present respondent and rate of rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month instead of 6,000/- per month. 8. Against the passing of said judgment, the petitioner/landlord has preferred the present petition. 9. It is contended by Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned judgment as passed by learned Appellate Authority is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside since the same does not meet the requirement of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. He further submitted that there is ample evidence on record to show and prove that the rent was Rs.10,000/- per month at the relevant time. However, the judgment, which has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority by reducing the rent from Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month, is bad in the eyes of law. 5 10. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, has defended the impugned judgment. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that the learned Rent Controller has erred by passing the order, whereby the rate of rent was fixed at Rs.6,000/-, erroneously without any evidence on record. He submitted that learned Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the material on record and come to the conclusion that the present petitioner is entitled to rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. The admitted fact of the case is that the present petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 4 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, for the fixation of fair rent and the same was allowed by learned Rent Controller on 19.08.2015 by fixing the rate of rent at Rs.6,000/- per month. 12. A perusal of the record, especially, the evidence as led by the present petitioner, shows that there is a categorical admission on the part of the present petitioner that he does not have any proof to substantiate that, at the relevant time, the prevalent rate of rent was Rs.10,000/- per month. In his cross- examination, there is an admission on his part that he cannot place on record any material evidence to show that the rate of 6 rent of similar premises in the vicinity is Rs.10,000/- per month. The said cross-examination clinches the entire controversy. Learned Rent Controller, without taking into consideration the material placed on record and the admission on the part of the present petitioner, passed the order by fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.6,000/- erroneously and without any basis. Learned Appellate Authority while dealing with the case in hand has given a specific finding especially in paragraphs 21 to 23 and come to the conclusion that the fixation of the rate of rent at Rs.6,000/- was without any basis and evidence on record. Learned Appellate Authority, has rightly come to the conclusion that the rate of rent at Rs.2,500/- per month shall be paid by the preset respondent to the present petitioner. 13. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, has discussed the parameters of the scope of interference under Section 115 of CPC, which read as under: “45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re- appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in 7 revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re- appreciate or re- assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 14. While dealing with the present civil revision petition, the scope of interference with the findings as returned by learned Appellate Authority is very narrow. Keeping in view the material 8 placed on record and the admission as made by the present petitioner, there is no infirmity in the judgment as passed by learned Appellate Authority. 15. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge 31st March, 2026 (vt)