THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.Nos. 1590 of 2010 and 5461 of 2009 ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.1590 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 27.10.2009 of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.17 of 2009 and Civil Revision Petition No. 5461 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 27.10.2009 of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.25 of 2009 whereunder and whereby fixing of fair rent at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month in respect of the schedule premises by virtue of the judgment dated 31.12.2008 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.310 of 2006 was confirmed. 2. For better appreciation of the facts, the parties are referred to as landlords and tenants. Landlords filed a petition before the Rent Controller for fixing the fair rent on the ground that the total area of the schedule premises is 840 square yards, in which, the plinth area of 1000 square feet was being occupied by the tenants by paying Rs.500/- per month which is very meager and that the premises is located in the heart of the city and it is a commercial area known as Jambagh, Mojamjahi Market, Hyderabad. The value of the building and the rents have gone up and the schedule premises would fetch nearly Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, the petition. 3. The tenants have filed their counter stating that the building in question is a jack arch construction of hundred years old; that they are doing fruit business since a long time; that the property lost its prominence as most of the fruit market has been shifted from the said place to another area; that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent in respect of the open land and that there is no parking space. 4. On the basis of the said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following point: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for fixation of fair rent and if so at what quantum of rent?” 5. On behalf of the landlords PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. On behalf of the tenants, RW1 was examined and Exs. R1 to R25 were marked and Ex.X1 was also marked. 6. The trail Court basing on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the documents and also the admission made by RW1 with regard to the building and locality of the schedule premises, fixed the rent at Rs.18,000/- per month. Aggrieved thereby, both the landlords and the tenants have preferred appeals before the appellate Court and the appellate Court dismissed the appeals confirming the fixation of the fair rent at Rs.18,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the orders of the appellate Court, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 7. Now the point for determination in these two revisions is whether the findings of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel for the tenants vehemently contended that before both the Courts below no acceptable evidence is adduced by the landlords to show that the prevailing rate of rent in the locality is about Rs.18,000/- per month and in the absence of any evidence, both the Courts below basing on the surmises fixed the fair rent and that the appellate Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of PW2 for the reason that his evidence was not found to be acceptable and if that is the case, the landlords have not filed any other document to show the prevailing rate of rent where the premises in dispute is located and that the guidelines fixed by the Municipal Corporation for the purpose of determining the fair rent have not been taken into consideration and if the said guidelines are taken into consideration, the rental value would be only Rs.4.80 ps per square feet and therefore, the findings of both the Courts below are perverse and not based upon the admissible evidence on record and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords contended that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 would clearly go to show that the tenants are not only using 1000 square feet of built up area for the purpose of doing fruit business but also using the vacant area for the purpose of parking and other amenities; that the building in question is located at 80 feet main road; that even though some of the fruit shops have been shifted from that place, the premises in question is centrally located; that if the premises in question is leased out, it would fetch not less than Rs.25,000/- per month; that for a small shop of 162 square feet, PW2 is paying Rs.150/- per day and without recording any reasons, the appellate Court has not placed any implicit reliance on the evidence of PW2, that if the evidence of PW2 is taken into consideration, definitely, the rent fixed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court needs to be enhanced and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition filed by the tenants and allow the Civil Revision Petition filed by the landlords by enhancing the rent from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. 10. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Firm is a tenant. Father used to carry on business and sons are partners to the firm and after the death of the father, sons are carrying on the business. It is not in dispute that from 1992 onwards, the tenants have been paying rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. The total area of the petition schedule premises is 840 square yards whereas the constructed area is about 1000 square feet. Both the Courts below while fixing the fair rent have taken into consideration the actual area of occupation of the premises in question i.e., the constructed area. 11. Both the learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court reported in SURESH GIR v K. SAHADEV[1] wherein it was held at paragraph 41 as follows: “It is not necessary for us to expound the concept of fair rent and to dwell at length on the modalities of arriving at the fair rent in the absence of definite criteria. Suffice it to say that the expression fair rent is synonymous with ‘reasonable rent’- reasonable from the point of view of both tenant and landlord. It undoubtedly excludes from its fold exorbitant rent and the abnormal or extraordinary circumstances.” So, for fixing the fair rent, the Court has to take into account, location of the house, the plinth area of the building, the availability of certain amenities, normal rent for a residential building and the factum of escalation in rents. Therefore, basing on the above decision, it has to be seen whether the rent fixed by the trial Court is correct or not. 12. Similarly, the learned counsel for the tenants placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court reported in NIYAS AHMAD KHAN v MAHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN[2] for the proposition that the Court should not adopt any abnormal or arbitrary figure for ascertaining prevailing market rent. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in RATTAN ARYA v STATE OF TAMIL NADU[3] for the proposition that the Court can take judicial notice of the enormous multifold increase of rents through out the country, particularly in urban areas. 14. The learned counsel for the tenants has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in MADAMANCHI RAMAPPA AND ANOTHER v MUTHALURU BOJJAPPA[4] for the proposition that Ex.P19 can be looked into even without examining the parties thereto. But the decision has no application to the present facts of the case in view of the fact that in the said decision at the time of marking the document, no objection has been raised in the trial Court or at the appellate stage. When a document is marked without there being an objection, the contents of the documents can be looked into. No doubt it is a registered lease deed executed between the parties thereto, but at the same time, the tenants have taken objection while marking that document. Therefore, it is for the person who presented the document to examine any one of the persons related to the said document to prove the contents. Hence, both the Courts below rightly held that the document cannot be relied upon. 15. The learned counsel for the tenants placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in BHUPENDRA N. PATEL AND OTHERS v HARSHAVARDHAN, CHOKKANI[5] wherein the power of the revisional Court is explained in paragraph ‘8’ which reads as under: “It is thus clear from the above decisions that the revisional jurisdiction of the authority constituted under a particular enactments to be exercised within the frame work of the statutory provision and it cannot be equated with the appellate jurisdiction. The distinction has already been drawn by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. Thus, if a finding of fact is based on legally admissible evidence, such a finding cannot be disturbed by a revisional Court exercising the revisional power. The revisional power under Section 22 is apparently wider than that of the power under Section 115 of C.P.C. The revisional Court has to satisfy itself to the legality, regularity and propriety of the order of the subordinate Court. The jurisdiction enables the revisional Court to examine correctness of the finding of fact also in appropriate cases where the finding was rendered without there being any evidence or considering the evidence which was not relevant. Thus, the reappreciation of the evidence if it is an appellate Court is not permissible. But, yet, if the finding is illegal or irregular can be corrected in the revisional jurisdiction. For this purpose, this Court need not refer to the entire evidence, but at the same time, if the finding arrived by the lower Court was such that it was perverse and no person of ordinary prudent could come to such a finding, it has to be declared as perverse finding and it can be corrected in the revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the interference of the revisional Court cannot be totally ousted not only on the question of law, but also on finding of fact provided, the said finding was not based on any evidence or if the finding is contrary to law.” 16. There is no dispute about the law laid down in the above decision because when the findings are perverse or not based upon the admissible evidence on record or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration it can be corrected in the revisional jurisdiction. 17. The learned counsel for the tenants relied upon the decision of this Court reported in D.V.KONDA REDDY v SMT K.V.RAMANA KUMARI[6] wherein it was held that the jurisdiction to fix fair rent in respect of the premises, which are otherwise amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, is unfettered. The Act itself stipulates the parameters for fixation of fair rent. If, on the basis of such parameters, it emerges that the fair rent deserves to be fixed at a figure higher than Rs.1000/- there is nothing in law which precludes the Rent Controller from doing so. 18. For the proposition that there must be some substantial evidence for fixation of fair rent, the learned counsel for the tenants relied upon unreported judgment in C.R.P.No.4430 of 2009 and batch dated 10.02.2011 wherein it was held that there is no other evidence produced by the landlady to establish the prevailing rental value in the locality. Both the Courts below have lost sight of these aspects while determining the rent for the tenanted premises. 19. Now it has to be seen whether the jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court in enhancing the rent from Rs.500/- to Rs.18,000/- per month is proper and correct. 20. The burden is on the landlords to show that the prevailing rate of rent in the locality is Rs.25,000/- per month as claimed by them. As seen from the evidence, it is clear that the tenants have been paying the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 1992 onwards which is very meager and that the petition schedule premises has been provided with all amenities like electricity, water connection etc. Similarly, PW2 who is also doing fruit business in the same locality of Jambagh has stated that he is a tenant in respect of the tin shed premises admeasuring 162 square feet and paying Rs.150/- per day. Though the trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of PW2, but the appellate Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of PW2 on the sole ground that he is a relative of the landlords and to prove Ex.X1, none of them was examined. Admittedly, there is no evidence to show that PW2 is related to the landlords. Even assuming for a moment, that PW2 is related to the landlords, the same is not a ground to reject the testimony of the witness. The appellate Court committed serious error in not accepting the evidence of PW2. When he himself stated that Ex.X1 which is a rough note book in which landlord used to receive the rents, the question of examining the landlord to prove the contents of Ex.X1 does not arise and since PW2 is a party to Ex.X1, it can be said that Ex.X1 can be proved by the evidence of PW2. If the evidence of PW2 is taken into consideration, it can be said that he is a tenant in respect of 162 square feet of tin shed in which he is doing fruit business by paying rent of Rs.150 per day. A suggestion was given to PW2 that he is not doing fruit business and that Ex.X1 is fabricated for the purpose of supporting the case of the landlords, but the same was denied. Because PW2 is also doing fruit business in the same locality, RW1 is the competent person to speak about doing of fruit business by PW2. There is no whisper in the evidence of RW1 that PW2 was not at all doing fruit business or that he was not a tenant in respect of a tin shed to an extent of 162 square feet or that he was not paying rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, the trial Court rightly placed implicit reliance on the evidence of PW2 to support the evidence of PW1. The premises in question is centrally located in the city of Hyderabad which has been admitted even by RW1 himself in his evidence that the schedule premises is in commercial area and that there is a road in front of the shed to the extent of 80 to 90 feet. Therefore, from the evidence of RW1 coupled with the evidence of PWs1 and 2 it is clear that the petition schedule premises is located centrally in the Hyderabad city. No doubt the existing fruit market was shifted to some other place, but at the same time it is clear from the evidence of RW1 that the area is still famous for fruit business. 21. The rent was not enhanced from Rs.500/- per month from 1992 onwards. After about 14 years thereafter, the present petition is filed for fixation of the fair and reasonable rent. The carpet area in which the tenant was carrying on business is about 1000 square feet in the total area of 840 square yards of site. There is open space of 25 square yards in front of premises in question. Electricity supply, water connection etc., were provided. When the rent has not been increased from 1992 onwards, fixing of fair rent after 2006 nearly fourteen years thereafter appears to be abnormal but at the same time it cannot be said that the fixation of rent at Rs.18,000/- per month is abnormal and unjust. The guidelines of the Municipal Corporation for the purpose of determining the fair rent placed by the learned counsel for the tenants cannot be taken into consideration because that is not a part of the record either in the trial Court or in the appellate Court. When PW2 is paying rent at the rate of Rs.150 per day for a meager area of 162 square feet of site, the rent fixed by the Rent Controller at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month for the area of 1000 square feet cannot be said to be exorbitant or unreasonable. Therefore, the impugned orders need no interference. 22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. K.C.BHANU,J Dt. 21.03.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.Nos. 1590 of 2010 and 5461 of 2009 Dt. 21.03.2011 [1] 1997 (6) ALT 436 (D.B.) [2] 2008 7 Supreme Court Cases 539 [3] AIR 1986 S.C. 1444 [4] AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633 [5] 1999 (4) ALD 467 [6] 2006 (4) ALT 641