THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.Ps.1749, 1833, 2351 & 2363 of 2009 Date: 11.02.2010 C.R.P.No.1749 of 2009 & C.R.P.No.1833 of 2009: Between: Venkateswara Aluminium, Secunderabad and another …Revision petitioners And M/s. Chowdhary Systems and Supplies(P) Ltd.,Secunderabad. ….Respondent C.R.P.No.2351 of 2009 & C.R.P.No.2363 of 2009: Between: M/s. Chowdhary Systems and Supplies(P) Ltd., Secunderabad. …Revision Petitioner And Venkateswara Aluminium, Secunderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.Nos.1749, 1833, 2351 & 2363 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.R.P.No.1749 of 2009 is filed by the tenant against the common judgment dated 19.02.2009 in R.A.Nos.188 of 2007 and 176 of 2007 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The tenant also filed C.R.P.No.1833 of 2009 challenging the common judgment dated 19.02.2009 in R.A.Nos.189 of 2007 and 175 of 2009 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. Similarly, the landlord filed C.R.P.No.2363 of 2009 challenging the common judgment dated 19.02.2009 in R.A.Nos.188 of 2007 and 176 of 2007 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The landlord also filed C.R.P.No.2351 of 2009 challenging the common judgment in R.A.Nos.189 of 2007 and 175 of 2007 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 3. The subject matter of the revision petitions relates to fixation of fair rent of the mulgies bearing Nos.5-1-7, Kingsway, R.P.Road, Secunderabad and 5-1-8, Kingsway, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. 4. For the convenient sake and to avoid confusion, the parties will be referred to as “the landlord and the tenant”. 5. The landlord filed two R.C.Nos.122 of 2006 and 123 of 2006 before the Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Secunderabad under Section 4(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act seeking fixation of fair rent. Admittedly, the rent agreed between the parties for two premises is Rs.1500/- per month each exclusive of electricity and other municipal charges. The tenancy is oral and the rent is payable month to month. The tenant has been using both the premises as partly residential and partly commercial. It is also not in dispute that the premises is situated in the heart of the city at R.P. Road, Secunderabad and the tenant has been carrying on aluminum business in both the schedule mentioned premises. It is also not in dispute that the buildings are very old constructions made up with lime mortar. Though the tenant contended that the material used for roof has been falling down in patches, no document has been filed to establish the said fact. But, the fact remains that in two schedule mentioned premises, the tenant has been carrying on business since 15 years i.e. from the date of his occupation. 6. In R.C.No.123 of 2006 the landlord contended that as per market value certificate Ex.P-3, the value of the building is Rs.12,94,125/- and sought to fix fair rent @ Rs.12,600/- per month which was opposed by the tenant. Similarly, in R.C.No.122 of 2006 the landlord contended that the schedule mentioned property is of 275 square feet which is situated in the same locality, the value of which according to the market value certificate produced by him is Rs.8,76,500/-, which would fetch the rent approximately Rs.8,250/- to Rs.9,625/- and he sought to fix the rent @ Rs.9,000/- per month. 7. In R.C.No.123 of 2006, the learned Rent Controller fixed the rent @ Rs.6,300/- per month and in R.C.No.122 of 2006 fixed the rent @ Rs.4,500/- per month. 8. The fixation of fair rent as stated above has been challenged by the landlord as well as the tenant by filing separate appeals. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by his common judgment dated 19.02.2009 in R.A.Nos.188 of 2007 and 176 of 2007 & R.A.Nos.189 of 2007 and 175 of 2007 confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller in all respects and declined to interfere with the said findings on the ground that they are based on evidence and the assessment is made in accordance with the settled principles of law. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the tenant filed C.R.P.Nos.1749 of 2009 and 1833 of 2009 and the landlord filed C.R.P.Nos.2351 of 2009 and 2363 of 2009 questing the correctness and legality of the orders passed by both the Courts below. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the landlord and the tenant. 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant that the extent is 195 square feet and 310 square feet, the premises have no parking space, except electricity, there are no other facilities, the road on which mulgies are situated, is very narrow and both the Courts below ignoring all the said facts, arrived at the fair rent which is on higher side. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord would submit that by documentary evidence Exs.P-1 and P-5, the landlord could be able to establish that the extent is 412.5 square feet and 275 square feet, the rental values in the neighbourhood is Rs.30 to 35 per square feet and in fact, as per Ex.P-5 produced by the landlord, the rent is at Rs.92/- square feet and ignoring all these factors, the Courts below fixed the rents which is very low and the fixation of fair rent is not in accordance with the settled principles of law and therefore, it requires enhancement. 13. I have gone through the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the judgments passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in the appeals. The Rent Controller by taking into consideration the relevant factors, such as, the age of the building, the value of the building, rentals in the neighbourhood and the rental premises are partly commercial and partly residential, the location of the buildings and also the increase of rents and the rents from time to time in a prime locality, fixed the fair rent as mentioned above which on reappraisal of evidence, the appellate authority, confirmed the same. 14. There are concurrent findings of fact and law by the Courts below regarding the fixation of fair rent. The lower appellate authority also relied upon a decision reported in RATTAN ARYA ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER[1] wherein certain principles have been laid down keeping in view the fast increase of rentals from time to time. The Apex Court held that while fixing the fair rent in a petition filed for fixation, the Court can take judicial notice of enormous manifold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly in urban area. 15. While making submissions in the revision petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord relied upon a decision reported in SURESH GIR v. K. AHADEV[2] wherein the Division Bench of this Court also laid down the same principles in para 14 of it’s judgment, which is as follows: “It is fairly settled that the validity of the proviso or Act at the inception may not continue for ever and the entire complexion may change by efflux of time and changed circumstances. Section 4 envisages the modulation of fair rent in consonance with the rents prevailing in the locality during the period of 12 months prior to 1.4.1944 with marginal increase. This provision evolved at the time when the Act was enacted continued to be same without responding to the sea change in the price structure. It cannot be gainsaid that there is galloping increase in prices and the value of rupee has been eroding fast and the rupee value has fallen down to 1/8thg of its original value. In view of the high inflationary tendencies and the rupee value degenerating, the continued adherence to the rents prevailing in 1944 is far removed from real state of affairs. The value of the building is appreciating by leaps and bounds and the cost of living index has been on tremendous increase, thanks to inflation, and the amount fixed with relation to rent in 1944 is depreciating in terms of money value. In view of current economic standards and spiraling prices, it is highly unrealistic to cling to old values and rentals in 1944. It looks odd that the rents prevailing in 1943-44 with consolation increase should be applied in 1985-86 and the provision is screaming manifest unreasonableness. In view of the rigidity and chillness and lack of response to changed conditions and pattern of life, Section 4 is stripped of realistic and rational approach. Section 4 by adherence to the rentals of 1944 is totally indifferent to the real state of affairs in the real estate matters. The mode of fixing the fair rent envisaged in Section 4 of the Act is anything but fair.” However, both the Courts below examined the issue of fixation of fair rent in the light of the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgments are rendered in ignorance of any legal principles. 16. This Court while exercising the revisional powers under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below stating that the findings are perverse and are not based on any evidence. The power of this Court in revision under Section 22 of the Act is wider than the powers of revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. But, this Court is not supposed to reverse the concurrent findings of the Courts below by taking a different view. 17. In the instant cases, both the Courts below upon considering the contentions urged by both parties, examining the evidence on record, arrived at a definite conclusion regarding the fair rent of the schedule mentioned premises. The findings being based on evidence, the appellate Court had categorically held that the plinth area of the building or it’s market value are not only the consideration for fixing the fair rent and other relevant factors viz. condition of the building, it’s surroundings and the rents prevailing in the locality have to be taken into consideration. On a thorough reappraisal of the evidence on record, the appellate authority confirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller by holding that it is not possible to take a different view. This Court also is of the view that since there is no perversity in the findings of both the Courts below and they being in accordance with the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, cannot be interfered with in the revision by exercising the powers under Section 22 of the Act. 18. For the foregoing reasons, all the revisions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:11.02.2010 CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.Ps.1749, 1833, 2351 & 2363 of 2009 Date: 11.02.2010 [1] AIR 1986 SC 1444(1) [2] 1997 ALT(6) 436