THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3295 OF 2009 AND 3752 OF 2009 C.R.P.No.3295 of 2009: Between: Sri Trilok Kumar Sanghi and others .....PETITIONERS AND Sri P. Raghavender ....RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.3752 of 2009: Between: Sri Trilok Kumar Sanghi and others .....PETITIONERS AND Sri P. Raghavender ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3295 OF 2009 AND 3752 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 15 of 1960, are directed against the common judgment, dated 01.06.2009, in R.A.Nos.139 of 2007 and 164 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. R.A.No.139 of 2007 is filed by the petitioners herein/tenants against the order, dated 30.04.2007, in R.C.No.205 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the respondent herein seeking fixation of fair rent for the demised premises under which the petitioners herein are tenants, was allowed fixing the fair rent for the demised premises at Rs.3,456/- per month exclusive of electricity consumption charges, from the date of filing of the petition. Whereas, R.A.No.164 of 2007 is the cross appeal filed by the respondent herein/landlord to fix the fair rent at Rs.7,000/- per month. 3. The respondent herein/landlord filed the Rent Control Case stating as follows: Respondent herein is the owner and landlord of the schedule premises bearing No.4-4-220, admeasuring 450 square feet situated at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. Petitioners herein are the tenants of the said mulgi; paying rent at Rs.800/- per month since October, 1997. It was agreed that the rent should be enhanced as per the market value, but the petitioners failed to enhance the rent. The area where the petition schedule premises is located is a commercial area. The market value along with the rent of the premises have been enhanced abnormally. The present market value of the petition schedule premises is about Rs.25,00,000/-. If the petition schedule premises is let out to others, it would fetch rent of more than Rs.7,000/- per month. The respondent has also filed eviction petition in Rent Control Case No.354 of 2004 and the same is pending on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Hence, the Rent Control Case is filed, without causing prejudice to the rights of the parties in the eviction petition. 4. Petitioner No.1 herein filed counter, which was adopted by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein. It is stated that the Rent Control Case is filed in the name of wrong person; that petitioner No.1 is conducting business in the name of M/s. Allied Pharma in the petition schedule premises as sole proprietor; that the rents are being paid in the name of M/s. Allied Pharma through cheques and therefore, the Rent Control Case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, and also mis-joinder of parties; that the respondent herein has filed Rent Control Case No.354 of 2004 against the petitioners herein on false grounds; that the Rent Control Case is filed in order to harass the petitioners herein; that there is no controversy with regard to the payment of rent at Rs.800/- per month since October, 1997; that the rent was enhanced as per the demand of the respondent herein, which was in any way exorbitant and that there would be no subsequent enhancement of rent in future; that the area of the mulgi is not 450 square feet; that the respondent herein has claimed exorbitant enhancement of rent at Rs.7,000/- per month; that the petition schedule premises is an old construction and therefore, it cannot fetch fair rent as prayed for and hence, they prays to dismiss the Rent Control Case. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following point has been framed by the trial Court: “1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of rent of Rs.7,000/- per month from Rs.800/- per month or at what quantum of rent?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the respondent herein, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the petitioners herein, RW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, fixed the rent payable at Rs.3,456/- per month to the petition schedule premises admeasuring 432 square feet. Challenging the same, the respondent herein/landlord and the petitioners’ herein/tenants preferred two separate appeals. The appeal of the respondent herein was partly allowed duly fixing the fair rent at Rs.4,300/- per month from the date of filing of the petition and the appeal filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revisions are filed by the petitioners’ herein/tenants. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants contended that there is no material to show that the rent payable as determined by the appellate Court is proper rent; that the petitioners have already vacated the premises and therefore, the question of enhancing the rent by the appellate Court does not arise and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned common judgment. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord contended that the petitioners themselves admitted that they are paying rent at Rs.7,000/- per month for another mulgi, which is located in the vicinity of the premises in question and therefore, the appellate Court rightly enhanced the rent; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned common judgment and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 10. The factual matrix is not in dispute. In October, 1997, rent payable to the premises in question was enhanced from Rs.450/- to Rs.800/- per month. It is not in dispute that the petitioners/tenants have already vacated the premises in question. The evidence of PW.1 would go to show that the prevailing rents as on the date of giving evidence is Rs.7,000/- for a similar premises like the petition schedule premises and the value of the property is estimated at Rs.24,200/- per square yard. PW.2, who claims to be the owner of the premises bearing No.4-2-233/4, situated in Inderbagh, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, admeasuring 240 square feet, stated that on 08.03.2004, he leased out his premises on monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- to Y. Satyanarayana and others and that Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the rent receipt issued by PW.2 to his tenants. The said premises is also located very close by to the petition schedule premises. The said evidence has been denied by the petitioners. According to petitioner No.1, he is paying rent of Rs.1,100/- per month to the premises bearing No.4-4-239/1, admeasuring 250 to 270 square feet, which belongs to one Sundermal Dunia and Rs.9,000/- to the mulgi bearing No.4-4-230/B2, which belongs to one Ashok Kumar Jaiswal. So, from the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it can be safely said that the petition schedule premises is located in a strategic locality where the rents would be very high. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.3,456/- per month to the petition schedule premises, whereas the appellate Court enhanced it to Rs.4,300/- per month for which there was no basis. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to fix the rent at Rs.3,900/- per month to the premises in question, admeasuring 432 square feet, which is just and fair from the date of filing of the petition till the date of eviction. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of fixing the fair rent payable by the petitioners/tenants for the petition schedule premises at Rs.3,900/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till the date of eviction. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 08, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3295 OF 2009 AND 3752 OF 2009 February 08, 2011