THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1435 of 2011 Dated: - 18th August 2011 Between:- Kaleem Akter Siddiqui ...Petitioner AND Dr.Soma Sudheer …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1435 of 2011 ORDER:- This revision is directed against judgment dated 22.03.2011 passed in R.A.No.157 of 2010 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (‘the lower appellate authority’, for brevity), whereby and whereunder, the order dated 26.04.2010 passed in R.C.No.50 of 2008 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, (‘the Rent Controller’, for brevity) was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord of the premises bearing municipal No.3-1-30 (New) 6549 (Old) consisting approximately 350 square feet situated at R.P.Road, Secunderabad (the petition schedule mulgi). Initially, a written rental agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent in August, 1962, for a period of 11 months and subsequently, the rent was enhanced from time to time and the present rent being paid by the tenant to the landlord is Rs.500/- per month excluding the electricity charges. The respondent/landlord, contending that the present market value rent is approximately Rs.30/- per square feet and that the petition schedule mulgi is in prime commercial locality and is just 100 yards away from Patny Centre and that its market value as per the Market Value Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar is Rs.15,00,000/- and that one adjacent portion of the petition schedule mulgi which also belongs him is let out to a bank namely Karur Vysya Bank, which is paying a rent of Rs.19/- per square feet and that the rent of Rs.500/- per month being paid by the petitioner herein/tenant is highly unfair, filed a R.C. under Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, before the Rent Controller seeking fixation of fair rent to the petition schedule mulgi. 3. The petitioner/tenant filed a counter and admitted that the petition schedule mulgi is situated in a prime commercial locality and contended that the rent which is being paid by the adjacent tenants, viz., Karur Vysya Bank cannot be compared with that of his rent as the Bank has all the facilities such as Strong Room, Drinking water supply, bathrooms and toilets etc., and that no such facilities are available in the petition schedule mulgi except power supply and a toilet and that the petition schedule mulgi is an old mulgi of 60 years. 4. Evidence was let in. On behalf of the respondent/landlord, one Soma Dayanand was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner/tenant, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced except examining himself as R.W.1. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Rent Controller framed necessary issues for consideration and having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the rents being paid by the adjacent tenants and also the Municipal Tax Receipts which are marked as exhibits, allowed the R.C. and fixed the fair rent to the petition schedule mulgi at the rate of Rs.4,750/- per month and directed the tenant to pay the rent so fixed to the landlord from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter to the lower appellate authority in R.A.No.157 of 2010 and the lower appellate authority, having considered the location of the petition schedule mulgi and other circumstances, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Rent Controller, which order is being impugned in this revision. 6. Sri Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/tenant submitted that the petition schedule mulgi is an old one of 60 years and that no facilities are available in the mulgi and, therefore, enhancement of rent is exorbitant and the rent fixed by the Rent Controller cannot be treated as fair rent. 7. Per contra, Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent herein/landlord submitted that the petition schedule mulgi is situated in a prime commercial locality and the adjacent tenants have been paying rent at the rate of Rs.25/- per square feet and the evidence of P.W.2 goes to prove the same and, therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In view of the above rival claims, the only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned order is sustainable. 9. There cannot be any doubt that the Court can take judicial notice of enormous manifold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly in urban areas. As can be seen from the documentary evidence let in, particularly Exs.P.3 and P.4 – Property Tax Receipts dated 30.03.2009 and 27.12.2008 respectively, they reveal that the landlord has paid Municipal Tax of Rs.3,430/- for the period from April 2008 to March, 2009. Thus, the annual municipal tax being paid by the landlord appears to be Rs.6,860/- and the rent being paid by the tenant in respect of the petition schedule mulgi to the landlord is less than the annual municipal tax being paid by the landlord. The evidence of R.W.1 reveals that except power supply and a toilet, no other amenities are available in the petition schedule mulgi. Though the petition schedule mulgi is situated in prime commercial locality and though the tenants of the adjacent premises have been paying higher rents than the petitioner herein/tenant, but the facts remains that the petition schedule mulgi is 60 years old and there are no amenities available in it that are available in the adjacent premises. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the location of the petition schedule mulgi and its age, I consider it just and reasonable to fix the fair rent at Rs.4,500/- per month. 11. Subject to the above modification in fixation of fair rent, the revision stands dismissed without any order as to costs. The petitioner herein/tenant is directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition before the Rent Controller. However, the petitioner herein/tenant is permitted to pay half of the arrears amount within six weeks from today and the remaining half of the arrears amount within four weeks thereafter. _______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 18th August, 2011 Bvv