IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3266 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Erukula Veeraiah …PETITIONER AND M.Premnath and another …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3266 OF 2006 ORDER: The Revision Petition was filed against the order, dated 21-04-2006, in R.A.No. 65 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per month. 2. The application was filed before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R.C.No. 206 of 2001 for fixation of the fair rent and the Court fixed the rent at Rs.2,500/- per month and, in the appeal the learned Chief Judge has reduced the same to Rs.1,800/-. 3. The facts not in dispute are that the appellant is a tenant of the schedule property and originally rent was fixed as Rs.800/- per month. The property said to have been purchased by the landlords under a sale deed in the year, 1997. Due to the location of the property and its utility and prevailing rental values, the enhancement was sought by the landlords. 4. The petitioner, who is the respondent-tenant before the lower Court, contended that the respondents-landlords herein have purchased the property from the previous land owner and the tenant has also filed a suit in O.S.No. 479 of 1997 for specific performance and the suit is pending and that the rent payable is legal and therefore, there is no ground to enhance the rent. 5. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Rent Controller fixed the rental value at Rs.2,500/- per month and in appeal, the same was reduced to Rs.1,800/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the orders of the Rent Controller and the Chief Judge, are legal and sustainable? 7. POINT: In this case, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, earlier in R.C.No. 145 of 1994 there was a fixation of fair rent and when once the rent is fixed under Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 (Hereinafter referred to as “The Act”), no further application is maintainable, unless and until the provisions under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act are satisfied. 8. In this case, evidently the application is not on the ground mentioned under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the judgment reported in Raichurmatham Prabhakar and another Vs. Rawatmal Dugar[1], wherein the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is laid down. In other words, when once the fair rent under Section 4 has been fixed, there shall be no further increase except on the grounds under Sections 5 or 6 of the Act. 9. Evidently, this plea was not taken by the revision petitioner before the Lower Courts. On the other hand, when the appeal was pending, I.A.Nos. 924 of 2005, and 1009 of 2005 were filed to receive additional evidence, i.e., the order in R.C.No. 145 of 1995, dated 09- 08-1996. The copy of the order is not on file, but as can be seen from para 10 of the order of the lower Court, the matter is said to have been settled between the landlord and tenant and accordingly, the rent was fixed at Rs.800/- per month. Therefore, the rent that was fixed under Ex.R-21 is an agreed rent between the parties and it is not a fair rent, which is determinable under Section 4 of the Act. The scope of Section 4 of the Act is to determine a fair rent whenever a complaint of insufficiency of rent is made. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, since there was no plea in the lower Court, it is necessary to examine as to whether the order under Ex.R-21 is an order of fixation of rent by the Court under Section 4 of the Act or whether it is an agreement between the parties and whether such agreement debars from filing a subsequent application for fixation of the fair rent. Evidently, the status of the tenant in this case is also altered for the reason he claims to have filed a suit against the original owner for specific performance of the contract and in such circumstances, the question as to the application of the provision of Tenancy Act are also to be considered. 10. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the matter is remanded to the lower Court to consider the above aspects and dispose of the case by giving opportunity to both parties, pending disposal of the said application before the Rent Controller, the revision petitioner shall continue to pay the rent at Rs.1,800/- per month as fixed by the appellate authority. Accordingly the point is answered. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the lower Court i.e., the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, to determine as per the directions in the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Date: 28-01-2011. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J INL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3266 OF 2006 28th January, 2011 INL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3266 OF 2006 [1] AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 3625