IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRP.Nos. 4920, 4921 & 4922 OF 2008 Between: CRP.No. 4920 of 2008. M/s. Sri Balaji Rameshwarlal, Represented by Seetaram Bhati Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business Carrying in shop bearing No.M.No.2-2-60/D Situated at Pan Bazaar, Secunderabad. … Petitioner V/s. Smt. Ratan Bai w/o Jugal Kishore Bung Aged about 67 years, Occ. Landlady, R/o. 2-2-60, Pan Bazaar, ] Secunderabad. … Respondent Between: CRP.No. 4921 of 2008. M/s. Sri Balaji Rameshwarlal, Represented by Seetaram Bhati Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business Carrying in shop bearing No.M.No.2-2-60/D Situated at Pan Bazaar, Secunderabad. … Petitioner V/s. Smt. Ratan Bai w/o Jugal Kishore Bung Aged about 67 years, Occ. Landlady, R/o. 2-2-60, Pan Bazaar, ] Secunderabad. … Respondent Between: CRP.No. 4922 of 2008. Syed Moinuddin, s/o late Syed Mehboob Ali Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of Variety Steel Sales Corporation in premises bearing M.No.2-2-61-B, situated at Pan Bazaar, Secunderabad. … Petitioner V/s. Smt. Ratan Bai w/o Jugal Kishore Bung, Aged about 57 years,Occ. Landlady, R/o. 2-2-60, Pan Bazaar, Secunderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.A. Achuthanand Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Damodar Mundara The Court made the following : (common order follows 3rd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRP.Nos. 4920, 4921 & 4922 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER : CRP No. 4920 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 31-7-2008 passed in R.A. No. 86 of 2006 and Cross- Objections SR.No. 4253 of 2006 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the cross- objections and allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 10-11-2005 passed in RC.No.71 of 2003 by the learned Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, RC.No.71 of 2003, which was filed under section 4 of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule premises was allowed, fixing the fair rent in respect of the petition-schedule premises at Rs.1950/- per month. 2. CRP.No. 4921 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 31-7-2008 passed in RA.No. 84 of 2006 and Cross-Objections SR.No. 4252 of 2006 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the cross-objections and allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 10-11-2005 passed in RC.No.69 of 2003 by the learned Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, RC.No.69 of 2003, which was filed under section 4 of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule premises was allowed and the fair rent to the petition-schedule premises has been fixed at Rs.1350/- per month. 3. CRP.No. 4922 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 31-7-2008 passed in RA.No. 88 of 2006 and Cross-Objections SR.No. 4254 of 2006 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the cross-objections and allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 10-11-2005 passed in RC.No.73 of 2003 by the learned Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, RC.No.73 of 2003, which was filed under section 4 of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule premises was allowed and the fair rent to the petition-schedule premises has been fixed at Rs.2000/- per month. 4. Since the issues to be decided in these Civil Revision Petitions are common and the petition schedule premises are also situated in the same locality and the revision also arise out of the common order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court {Appellate Court under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960}, Hyderabad, all the three Civil Revision Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the following common order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Respondent. 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as “landlady” and “tenant”. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the jural relationship of the landlady and tenant. The only point requiring adjudication in these Revisions is “Whether fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller which was further enhanced by the appellate authority requires any interference in these revisions?” 8. It is admitted by both the parties that as on the date of filing of the petitions the rent was Rs.1000/- for each of the schedule mentioned premises and fair rent was sought to be fixed in respect of the schedule premises by the landlady @ Rs.25/- per sq.feet and thus sought for enhancement of the rent from Rs.1000/- to Rs.8,500/-. The learned Rent Controller having evaluated the positive and negative aspects of the location of the schedule mentioned premises viz., its location in pan bazaar, Secunderabad, which is a commercial locality with residential houses also and thus the schedule premises is partly residential and partly commercial; there is no water facility or toilet facility to the schedule mentioned shop; there is a very narrow road passing through the shops on either side which is not much accessible to the customers; the abnormal increase of rents in urban areas in recent times; the age of the building which is constructed about fifty years back and the fact that the landlady had not been attending to any repairs to the said building and on scrutiny of the evidence of PW-3, owner of the shop situated in the same locality and also the evidence of PW-2 who is said to be a tenant and in the absence of any other independent evidence corroborating the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 to the effect that PW-2 had been paying rent of Rs.6,600/- per month, has fixed the fair rent as stated above. 10. Assailing the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlady preferred R.A.Nos.86, 84, 88 of 2006 whereas the tenants filed cross-objections SR.Nos. 4253, 4252 and 4254 of 2006. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority passed common order, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Authority while further enhancing the rent and fixing the fair rent at Rs. 5,100, Rs. 3,135/- and Rs.5,115/- per month respectively has thus partly allowed the appeals filed by the landlady and dismissed the cross-objections filed by the tenants. 11. Aggrieved by the said common orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed. 12. I have gone through the common order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under the AP (Buildings, Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. A bare reading of the order impugned shows that the factors that were taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller only were adverted to by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, in enhancing the fair rent. The learned Rent Controller gave cogent and convincing reasons in considering the various factors, which have been stated hereinabove whereas, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority without assigning any clinching reasons in enhancing the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller, has enhanced to Rs.5,100, 3,135/- and Rs.5,115/- respectively. It is a settled principle of law that unless there are enough and valid reasons for revising the fixation of fair rent, the appellate authority is not supposed to disturb the findings of the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller having carefully considered all the aspects, which are required to be taken into account for fixing fair rent and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this High Court in fixing fair rent, has determined the fair rent at Rs.1950/-, in CRP.No.4920 of 2008, Rs.1350/- in CRP.No. 4921 of 2008 and Rs.2000/- in CRP.No.4922 of 2008 respectively. Since the order fixing the fair rent passed by the Rent Controller is based on evidence adduced on either side and in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court, the interference of the appellate authority is unwarranted and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Secunderabad. 13. Consequently, all the Civil Revisions Petitions are allowed, without there being any order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 08-03-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRP.Nos. 4920, 4921 & 4922 of 2008 Circulation No. Date: 08-03-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43