THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3897 OF 2010 Dated 14-10-2011 Between: M/s. Gupta & Company, represented by B.Jaiprakash. ..Petitioner. And: K.Pramila @ Pentamma and others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3897 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Judgment dated 28th June, 2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.63 of 2008 and cross objections in SR 4742 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the appellate authority has confirmed the order dated 23.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R.C.No.53 of 2007. Petitioner herein is the tenant and respondents herein are the landlords. Parties will hereinafter be referred to as ‘tenant and landlords’ respectively. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: Initially, the tenant was paying Rs.150/- towards rent exclusive of electricity charges, property tax and maintenance charges. Thereafter, he filed R.C.No.149 of 1991 on the file of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad under Section 12(1)(b) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (‘the Act’ for brevity) seeking to redeliver the possession after making constructions and thereafter, the matter was settled under a compromise memo dated 30.8.1991 and the tenant handed over possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlords for reconstruction of the building and accordingly, the landlords reconstructed the building and delivered possession of new constructed mulgi to the tenant. Then the landlord sought enhancement of rent on the ground that the present monthly rent was enhanced from Rs.350/- to Rs.500/- which is meager and the tenant has not enhanced the rent as per prevailing norms in the market in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the landlords. It is also their case that the petition schedule premises is facing RP road and is located at Secunderabad which is a commercial and busy area situated in the heart of the city and that it is surrounded by big establishments and that the market value of the petition schedule premises is Rs.6,58,800/-. Hence, the landlords claim to fix the rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per sft, which comes to Rs.13,750/-. The tenant filed counter admitting the tenancy and also subsequent compromise effected in R.C.No.149 of 1991 and enhancement of payment of monthly rent from Rs.350/- to Rs.500/- exclusive of electricity and property tax and subsequently enhanced to Rs.500/-. The tenant however denied that the present market value is at Rs.50/- per sft. and his case is that the claim of landlords is exorbitant and not reasonable. On behalf of the landlord, P.ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. Learned Rent Controller taking into consideration of the fact that the petition schedule premises is located in R.P.Road, Secunderabad which is a commercial locality and the present market value of the petition schedule premises is Rs.30,000/- per sft., in total of Rs.6,58,800/- and that the prevailing rental value of the surrounding area is Rs.20/- per sft, allowed the petition fixing the fair rent to the petition schedule premises at Rs.5,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred the appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the rent controller. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the tenant. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant and the landlords and perused the material available on record. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the enhancement of rent at Rs.5500/- is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the tenant submits that the lower appellate Court erred in fixing the fair rent at Rs.5,500/- per month and failed to see that the petition schedule property is being used as a godown as it is not suitable for commercial purposes. In this view of the matter, he seeks to allow the revision by setting aside the order impugned while setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlords submits that fixing fair rent at Rs.5.500/- by the learned Rent Controller which finding has been confirmed by the lower appellate, is reasonable and as such, the order impugned is justified and needs no interference by this Court. It is not in dispute that initially, the rent was at Rs.350/- per month and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.500/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the petition schedule premises is facing R.A.road and is located at Secunderabad which is a commercial and busy area situated in the heart of the city. The case of the landlords is that they filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule premises @ Rs.50/- per sft. The tenant admitted that he is paying the rent at Rs.500/- per month but however denied that the present market rental value is at Rs.50/- per sft., It is also contended that the premises is used for godown. The learned Chief Judge having observed that the admissions made on the part of R.W.1 are sufficient that the rent paid at the rate of Rs.500/- is not at all not on par with the market value and it is very less and however, the rent claimed by the owner by way of cross objections appears to be exorbitant and apart from that, the tenant has not mentioned the real facts with regard to the present rental value prevailing in that area, has rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the rent controller. Thus, it is clear that both the Courts below have considered the entire evidence and the location of the petition schedule premises and prevailing rental value in that area in a proper perspective. In the circumstances, the rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller taking into consideration the rental value @ Rs.20 per sft. at Rs.5500/- appears to be just and reasonable. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned and as such, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 14-10-2011. Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3897 OF 2010 Dated 14-10-2011 Dvs