THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 4352 of 2009 Order: This revision is directed against the orders dated 29.01.2009 passed in RCA No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry, confirming the orders dated 17.10.2005 passed in RCC No.63 of 2002 by the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the first respondent herein is the land lady of the petition schedule premises. The first respondent herein filed RCC No.63 of 2002, under Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) for fixation of fair rent at Rs.10,000/- per month for the petition schedule premises. The specific case of the land lady is that originally the petition schedule premises was leased out to the father-in-law of the present petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.275/-, who was running business in the name and style of M/s.Manorama Fashion Fabrics and that the shop is situated in Khaji street abutting to main road which is a busy commercial locality. It is also her case that earlier she had filed an application for eviction of the tenants and as there is likelihood of further delay in eviction proceedings she filed the application for fixation of fair rent. Originally, RCC No. 63 of 2002 was filed against M/s. Manorama Fashion Fabrics, represented by Gandhi Subrahmanyam and Gandhi Subrahmanyam is shown as second respondent. The respondents filed counter contending that the petition schedule premises would not get a rent of more than Rs.500/- per month. On behalf of the land lady, the land lady herself was examined as PW.1 and one Ch.V. Narayana was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the tenants the son of the second respondent in RCC No.63 of 2002 was examined as RW.1. No documents were marked on either side. The Tribunal, having considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and having considered the location of the shop which is in busy locality adjoining the main road and the area of the petition schedule property which is about 180 sq. feet, fixed the rent at Rs.1800/- per month with effect from 01.01.2003 and further ordered that there shall be increase in fair rent at 15% p.a., for every three years notionally. Challenging the same, respondent No.1 in RCC 63 of 2002 filed RCA No.1 of 2006. It appears that during the pendency of the said appeal, G. Subrahmanyam died. Then, the petitioner herein was added as third respondent, as per the orders in I.A. No.11474 of 2007, dated 18.02.2008, and respondents 4 to 7 herein were added as respondents 4 to 7, as per the orders in IA No.363 of 2008, dated 25.03.2008, to the said appeal. The appellate Court, having appreciated the entire material on record, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller calculating the rent at Rs.10/- per sq. feet. Challenging the said order the third respondent in RCA alone filed this revision showing the appellant Nos.2 to 7 in RCA as respondents 2 to 7 herein and contending that they are not necessary parties. It appears that at present the petitioner alone has been in possession of the premises and therefore the other respondents, who seem to be the legal heirs of the original tenant and who seem to have some concern with M/s. Manorama Fashion Fabrics have no interest to continue as tenants in the premises. Any how, it is settled law that even one of the legal heirs of the original tenant can continue as a tenant in the premises and that there is no controversy with regard to the fact that the petitioner herein alone has been in possession of the petition schedule premises. More over, it is not in dispute that the first respondent has been receiving rents from the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein is alone has been paying rents as per the interim orders of this Court. The only contention of Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that PW.1 the land lady herself admitted that she owns another shop on the west of the petition schedule premises which is also equal in size as that of petition schedule premises and that the tenant of that shop is paying Rs.625/- per month and that the Courts below have not taken into consideration this material evidence. It is also her submission that the shop of PW.2 is towards main road and therefore the Courts below ought not to have taken into consideration the evidence of PW.2 for fixing the fair rent. She has relied on a decision reported in Syed Jameel Abbas v. Mohd. Yamin @ Kallu Khan[1], wherein it was held that the same rent as being paid by tenants in adjoining shops would be a fair measure of rent which the tenant should be directed to pay. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent land lady is that admittedly the shop of PW.2 is in Seetamma lane and that the measurement of shop is only 3 x 6 feet and that PW.2 is paying rent of Rs.1080/- per month and therefore the Rent Controller and the appellate Rent Controller were justified in taking the evidence of PW.2 into consideration for fixation of fair rent. The rent Controller and the appellate Rent Controller seems to have not taken that part of evidence of the land lady into consideration mainly on the ground that the land lady specifically deposed that the eviction proceedings were pending against that tenant and therefore no petition was filed for fixation of fair rent in respect of that tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even on the date of filing of the present petition for fixation of fair rent eviction proceedings were still pending against the father-in-law of the present tenant. The plea taken by the land lady in her pleadings is that since there was likelihood of further delay in eviction proceedings she filed the application for fixing of fair rent. There are two circumstances in this case. One is admission of the land lady itself stating that the rent for the adjoining shop which is of same size and which is occupied by another tenant is at Rs.625/- per month. Of course, her case is that since she filed eviction proceedings she did not file any application seeking fair rent in respect of that tenant. The other circumstance is the evidence of PW.2. According to PW.2, he is a tenant of petty shop measuring 3 x 6 feet and paying rent of Rs.1080/- per month. On behalf of the tenant, RW.1 the son of original tenant was examined. RW.1 seems to have admitted that the petition schedule premises would fetch Rs.900/- per month on the date of giving his evidence. The petitioner has been doing business in the petition schedule premises the width of which is 10 x 18 feet. The said shop is visible to the main road. Admittedly, the petition schedule shop is the first shop after taking turn from the main road into Khaji street. The location of the shop, its nearness to the main road, the business activity in the said locality and increase in the rents are some of the circumstances that have to be taken into consideration while fixing a fair rent. Of course, the rents being paid by the adjacent tenants for the shops of similar size also have to be taken into consideration. But, as far as the version of PW.1 is concerned, there is no evidence to show that since how long the tenant of the other shop had been paying rent of Rs.625/- per month. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the location of the petition schedule shop and the admissions of RW.1 and the evidence of PW.1, I consider it just and reasonable to fix the fair rent at Rs.1500/- per month and uphold the order of the Rent Controller that there shall be increase in fair rent at 15% per annum for every three years. The petitioner is also directed to pay arrears of the rent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Of Course, the rents paid by the petitioner as per the interim directions of this Court, if any, shall be given credit to. Accordingly, the CRP is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 10.02.2011 Nsr [1] 2004(4) SCC 781