THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4474 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the common judgment, dated 03.12.2007, in R.A.No.177 of 2005 and Cross-objections therein, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order, dated 14.07.2005 in R.C.No.544 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, was dismissed, and the Cross-objections filed by the respondent/landlord, were partly allowed. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant, in respect of a commercial area admeasuring 496 square feet bearing Municipal No.15-9-466/3 situated at Ghansiram Buildings, Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad. As the rent payable by the respondent/tenant i.e., Rs.130/- per month, is very meager, the petitioner filed R.C.No.544 of 2002, under Section 4 of the Act, to fix fair and reasonable rent for the petition schedule premises. The respondent/tenant filed counter contending that the petition schedule premises was very old and all the repairs were carried out in the petition schedule premises by the tenant, and therefore, the rent payable by the respondent is very reasonable, and so, there are no grounds to increase the rent beyond Rs.130/- per month for the petition schedule premises. 4. During trial, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were got marked, on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-6 were got marked. Exs.X-1 to X-7 were also got marked. 5. Basing the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following point for consideration: “1) Whether this petition filed for fixation of fair rent for the petition schedule premises can be allowed and if so, what is the fair rent for the petition schedule premises?” 6. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court fixed fair rent at the rate of Rs.5/- per square feet per month, which comes to Rs.2,480/- per month in respect of 496 square feet. Challenging the same, the respondent/tenant filed R.A.No.177 of 2005 and the petitioner/landlord filed Cross-objections in the said appeal, before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, vide impugned common judgment, fixed the fair rent at Rs.6.50 ps. per square feet per month, which comes to Rs.3,224/- per month for the area of 496 square feet, which is admittedly in the possession of tenant. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed by the tenant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended that the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.130/- per month is very reasonable; that the petition schedule premises is very old one and no repairs have been taken up by the respondent/landlord; that the tenant incurred huge amount for carrying out repairs to the petition schedule premises; that the petition schedule premises in question is not facing the main road; that therefore, the rent fixed by the appellate Court is without any basis and not according to the evidence available on record and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned common judgment. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord contended that considering the rents prevailing in and around the petition schedule premises, the appellate Court fixed the rent at Rs.6.50 ps. per square feet per month; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned common judgment and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 9. The factual matrix is not in dispute. According to the petitioner/tenant it is paying rent at the rate of Rs.130/- per month for the petition schedule premises, which is fair and reasonable. It is admitted by the petitioner/RW.1 that it is paying rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month in respect of some other building admeasuring 400 square feet, which comes to Rs.10/- per square feet. Similarly, the evidence of PW.2, who is a tenant in the premises bearing No.15-9- 466/4, which is located near to the petition schedule premises, would clearly go to show that he is paying rent at the rate of Rs.4,100/- per month for 170 square feet. Similarly, the evidence of PW.5, the Manager, Andhra Pradesh Vardhaman Mahila Co-operative Bank, Mahaboobgunj, would clearly go to show that it is paying rent at Rs.12,744/- per month for 2360 square feet for the premises bearing No.15-9-466/4, Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad, which roughly comes to Rs.5.40 ps. per square feet. 10. Section 4 of the Act gives power to the Rent Controller to fix fair rent, which is just and reasonable. No doubt, there is evidence on record, which would go show that the building in the petition schedule premises is very old one, aged more than 50 years and it is located in the lane adjacent to the main road. Similarly, there is no evidence on record, which would go to show that in and around the petition schedule premises, the tenants were paying less than Rs.6/- per square feet. PW.5, who is a disinterested witness and Manager of the Andhra Pradesh Vardhaman Mahila Co-operative Bank, Mahaboobgunj, has categorically stated that the petition schedule premises is located at a distance of 20 feet from the main road. So, taking into consideration the evidence of PW.5, the appellate Court rightly fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.6.50 ps. per square feet per month for the petition schedule premises. That cannot be shown to be higher or unreasonable fixation. The fair rent fixed by the appellate Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment needs no interference by this Court. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 30, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4474 OF 2008 Between: Jai Hind Cycle Company .....PETITIONER AND Damodarlal Badruka ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4474 OF 2008 September 30, 2010