THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NOs. 2723 AND 4499 OF 2008 Date of Judgment: 21.7.2011 Between: CRP NO. 2723 OF 2008 M/s. Venkatarama Medical Hall …Petitioner and Smt. Surajbai Jain ..Respondent CRP NO. 4499 OF 2008 Between: Smt. Surajbai Jain …Petitioner and M/s. Venkatarama Medical Hall ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NOs. 2723 AND 4499 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: CRP No. 2723 of 2008 is filed by the tenant questioning the order of the learned Rent Controller as well as learned appellate authority fixing fair rent of the schedule premises at Rs.7,500/- per month. CRP No. 4499 of 2008 is filed by the landlady questioning the very same order of fixation and seeking enhancement of the rent from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, as was claimed in the landlady’s application for fixation of fair rent. Heard learned counsel on either side in both the revision petitions. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as “the landlady” and “the tenant”. The tenancy is with respect to a shop admeasuring 300 sq. feet on Rastrapathi road, Secunderabad and the agreed rent was Rs.150/- per month. The tenant is carrying on business of wholesale and retail as Chemist and Druggist. The landlady approached the learned Rent Controller under Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking fixation of fair rent on the ground that the tenant has not enhanced the rent from the date of purchase of the property by the landlady for several years, whereas a similar property in and around the locality fetches a rent of Rs.24,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The proximity of the premises to several banks, colleges, Government offices, residential areas, is therefore, pressed into service to claim that even the property tax of similar properties shows that the rent cannot be less than Rs.24,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The landlady substantiated the said claim by oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as well as documentary evidence of Exs.P 1 to P10 and most relevant from them are the demand notices for payment of property tax issued by Municipal Corporation and the receipts evidencing the payment i.e., Exs.P3 to P6. The tenant, on the other hand, opposed the application by contending that the landlady herself previously was a tenant in the same building and the rent being similar to that of the existing agreed rent and even otherwise he being an old tenant, the market rent on per sq. feet basis not leviable. He also disputes the quantum of municipal tax as alleged. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the learned Rent Controller was of the view that keeping in view the reasonable increase in rents in general, Rs.7,500/- per month would be just and proper rent and allowed the RC to that extent. On appeal by the tenant, the lower appellate authority had reconsidered the matter and on being satisfied that the order of the learned Rent Controller was passed on basis of the evidence on record and in conformity with the principles of assessing reasonable rent, has affirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller. It is noteworthy that the landlady has not questioned the order of the learned Rent Controller disallowing her claim at Rs.30,000/- per month and was apparently satisfied with the enhancement of Rs.7,500/- per month. No appeal was preferred by the landlady but a separate revision being CRP No. 4499 of 2008 is preferred in this court against the order of the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the tenant. After hearing both sides, and after considering the evidence on record, it is clear and apparent that the Municipal tax on which reliance is placed by the petitioner and accepted by the learned Rent Controller may not be a safe criteria to assess the rent, inasmuch as the municipal tax does not take into consideration the old and new tenancies and the difference in the rental values depended thereon. Further the tenant being old tenant is not in controversy and as such a reasonable enhancement of the rent keeping in view the current rental values is justified, in the absence of any independent evidence on the part of the landlady to show the prevailing rental values in and around the locality. I do not see any justification to enhance the rent to Rs.7,500/- per month and in my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to confine the enhancement to Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the petition for fixation filed by the landlady. The impugned orders are, therefore, modified and the rent shall stand fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month with effect from the date of filing of RC No. 30 of 2003 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. CRP No. 2723 of 2008 is accordingly allowed in part, whereas CRP No. 4499 of 2008 is dismissed. Pending finalisation of CRP No. 2723 of 2008, the tenant has deposited the rents at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per month as per orders in CRPMP No. 3567 of 2008, dated 11.7.2008. The said amounts paid by the tenant every month, and any other amounts paid by the tenant, shall be given credit to in conformity with the order now passed in these revisions. After giving such credit, if any, arrears are payable by the tenant, he shall pay the same within six weeks from today and file an appropriate memo that effect before the learned Rent Controller. The tenant shall continue to pay the every month’s rent at Rs.5,000/- per month commencing from August, 2011 onwards on or before 10th day of every month in advance. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 21.7.2011 KR