IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.NO.5590 OF 2007 21-12-2010 Between:- D.Narsingnath Rao .. Petitioner And C.Sulochana ..Respondent ORDER:- The respondent has not appeared though served with notice. Only the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and argued the matter. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The landlady laid Rent Control Case in R.C.No.388 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Rent Control Act, for short) seeking to fix fair rent at Rs.10,000/- per month. The premises is a 96 square feet commercial premises situate in Chikkadpally. The rent was initially at Rs.125/- per month as fixed in 1995 and it was later enhanced to Rs.225/- per month. The landlady seeks for the determination of the fair rent at Rs.10,000/- per month. The landlady examined herself as P.W.1. She did not choose to exhibit any document in support of her claim. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1. The tenant also did not choose to exhibit any document in support of his contention. The learned Rent Controller fixed fair rent at Rs.2,500/- per month on considering the evidence of the landlady and the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred appeal in R.A.No.108 of 2005 before the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Through the impugned order, the learned Additional Chief Judge partly allowed the appeal reducing the fair rent to Rs.1,000/- per month. Sri P.V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the tenant contended that where the landlady did not produce any evidence whatsoever including the rents around the locality, the trial Court and the appellate Court were correct in determining the fair rent enhancing the same from Rs.225/- per month. The learned appellate Judge had taken into consideration the fact that the premises in question is a commercial premises and that the same was located in a commercial locality. I, therefore, consider that the determination of fair rent at Rs.1,000/- per month by the appellate Court was fairly justified. I see no ground to interfere with the order of the appellate Court. The Revision is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 21st December 2010 AMD