THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4770 & 4791 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.4770 of 2010 is directed against the order, dated 04.08.2010, in I.A.No.276 of 2010 in R.C.No.415 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the prayer of the petition, was allowed. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.4791 of 2010 is directed against the order, dated 04.08.2010, in I.A.No.277 of 2010 in R.C.No.416 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the prayer of the petition, was allowed. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 4. As both the matters are between the same parties and involve same questions of fact and law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. Respondent herein filed two cases-R.C.Nos.415 and 416 of 2009 against the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule mulgis seeking fixation of fair rent. Petitioner filed counters contesting the petitions. Enquiry of both matters is yet to commence. At that stage, respondent filed I.A.Nos.276 and 277 of 2010 seeking amendment of the prayer in the petition to the effect that the learned Rent Controller while fixing the fair rent may also direct enhancement of the rent by 20% for every two years. According to the respondent, by mistake and inadvertence the said plea for enhancement could not be raised in the petition and in tune with the market practice he may be awarded enhancement of the rent by 20% for every two years. 6. Petitioners would contend that while fixing the fair rent, the Rent Controller has no power to order enhancement of the same. The question as to whether or not the Rent Controller is empowered to order enhancement of fair rent while fixing the fair rent and whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the cases, the respondent is entitled for fixation of fair rent or enhancement of the same, are all matters to be considered after due enquiry. Petitioners would not be subjected to prejudice by permitting the proposed amendment as they would be entitled to file additional counter opposing the additional plea raised by way of amendment regarding the enhancement of rent. 7. In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order, permitting the amendment in due exercise of discretion by the learned Rent Controller, does not call for any interference. Petitioner is at liberty to file additional counter and oppose the additional plea raised by the respondent. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 19th October, 2011. Tsy