HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 5053 of 2006 And C.R.P. No. 5711 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: Since the above two revision petitions arise out of the same dispute and that the relationship between the parties are one and the same as landlord and tenant, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam. 3. CRP No.5053 of 2006 has been filed by the tenants being aggrieved by the common order dated 21.08.2006 passed in RA No.136 of 2004 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Chief Judge, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord by fixing a fair rent at Rs.2400/- per month to the petition schedule premises excluding the electricity consumption charges and set aside the order dated 20-02-2004 passed in RC No.198 of 2001 on the file of the Addl. Rent Controller, Secunderabad. 4. CRP No. 5711 of 2006 has been filed by the tenants being aggrieved by the common order dated 21.08.2006 passed in RA No.295 of 2004 on the file of the Addl.Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Chief Judge, dismissed the appeal filed by the tenants. 5. The brief facts of the case that led to filing of the revision petitions are that : i) The landlord filed RC No.198 of 2001 u/Sec.4(1) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act for fixation of fair rent at Rs.5500/- per month for the mulgi bearing Door No.2-1-69 and 2-1-69/A (first floor) situated at Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad. ii) It is the case of the landlord that he purchased the building in the year 1981 and it was constructed about 40 years ago. The schedule premises is situated at a distance of 15 to 20 ft to M.G. Road, Secunderabad, and that it is in a prime commercial locality. The rental value prevailing within the vicinity of the schedule premises is more than 5 to 10 times when compared with the rent being paid by the tenant. The tenants are in occupation of the schedule premises on present monthly rent of Rs.300/-. The neighbouring tenants in the building are paying rent of Rs.8.75 per square feet per month and that the value of the property is Rs.12,000/- per yard and that the total value of the construction is around Rs.5,40,000/- as per the sub-registrar value and that therefore, the rent being paid by the tenant is not fair and just and hence sought for fixation of fair rent for the schedule premises. iii) The case of the tenants is that he is carrying on business in sale of cut pieces and that originally the premises belongs to one Varalaxmi from whom the tenant obtained the premises on rent and that later it was enhanced from time to time and in the month of March, 1996 the rent was enhanced to Rs.300/- and that again it was enhanced to Rs.500/- and that the schedule premises is not situated in a prime locality and M.G. Road and is nothing to do with the schedule property since it is situated at tobacco Bazar and that the Tobacco Bazar is not a commercial area and that no single tenant is paying more than Rs.700/- for the premise for the ground floor and that the prevailing market value within the vicinity of schedule premises is ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- and that therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Upon hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, the rent controller fixed a monthly rent of Rs.800/- for the schedule mulgies. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed RA No.136 of 2004 and the tenant preferred RA No.295 of 2004 before the Addl.Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. On perusal of the material available on record, the learned Addl. Chief Judge observed that now a days even for parking of four wheelers in the open space, the Municipal Corporation is collecting nearly Rs.10/- per hour and thereby set aside the order of the rent controller by common order dt.21.08.2006 and dismissed the appeal in RA No.295 of 2004 and allowed RA No.136 of 2004 by fixing a fair rent at Rs.2400/- per month to the petition schedule premises excluding electricity consumption charges. Challenging the said common order, both the revisions have been filed by the tenants. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The only submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in the above revision petitions is that the lower appellate court ought to have fixed a reasonable rent. 9. I have perused the material on record. 10. It is a dispute between the landlord and tenant in RC No.198 of 2001 regarding the petition schedule property. 11. Admittedly, the prevailing rate of rents and the rise in prices have to be taken into consideration. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the prevailing rate of rents in the locality as submitted by the leaned counsel for the landlord, I deem it appropriate to fix a reasonable rent of Rs.2800/- per month to the ground floor and Rs.2300/- per month for the first floor. Accordingly, the impugned common order dated 21-08-2006 passed in RA Nos.136 of 2004 and 295 of 2004 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, is modified to the extent indicated above. 13. Subject to the above modifications, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. _______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 08-04-2011 Mjl/*