THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P.Nos.1709, 2802 and 2984 of 2007 Dated 2nd February, 2011 C.R.P.No.1709 of 2007 Between: Madupalli Krishna Kishore …PETITIONER/LANDLORD And Allanki Venkateswara Rao …RESPONDENT/TENANT C.R.P.Nos.2802 and 2984 of 2007 Between: Allanki Venkateswara Rao …PETITIONER/TENANT And Madupalli Krishna Kishore …RESPONDENT/ LANDLORD The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P.Nos.1709, 2802 and 2984 of 2007 ORDER: All these three CRPs are filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). The premises in question is a non-residential premises i.e. a shop with an accommodation of 220.5 sq. ft/yards and it is admittedly situate in a commercial area in Eluru Town. The point in all the three CRPs relates to fixation of fair rent for the said premises and hence they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The landlord filed R.C.C.No.28 of 2001 under Section 4 of the Act in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Eluru for fixation of fair rent at Rs.4,410/- per month. The earlier agreed rent was Rs.425/- per month. The case of the landlord is that the tenancy commenced somewhere prior to 1998 and since then there has been no increase in the rent and as the rental values in the locality of petition schedule premises have gone up and also as the taxes and maintenance costs of the building have also gone up, the fair rent should be fixed at Rs.4,410/- per month having regard to the rental values prevailing in the locality. The tenant opposed that petition. Both sides have let in evidence in support of their respective cases. The learned Rent Controller after considering the matter has by his order dated 28.02.2004 partly allowed the R.C.C.No.28 of 2001 fixing the fair rent at Rs.700/- per month. 3. Not satisfied with the fixation of fair rent at Rs.700/- per month the landlord filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2004 and feeling aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller the tenant filed C.M.A.No.10 of 2004. The appellate authority under the Act i.e. the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Eluru disposed of both the CMAs by his separate orders dated 24.10.2006. He dismissed the tenant’s CMA No.10 of 2004 while he partly allowed the landlord’s CMA No.11 of 2004 enhancing the fair rent to Rs.1200/- per month. 4. Questioning the dismissal of his CMA, the tenant filed CRP No.2984 of 2007 and further he also filed CRP No.2802 of 2007 questioning the enhancement granted by the appellate authority. The landlord on his part filed CRP No.1709 of 2007 seeking enhancement of the fair rent to Rs.4,410/- as claimed by him before the Rent Controller. 5. In these revisions, Sri S.Subba Reddy the learned counsel appearing for the landlord relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 the landlord and the evidence of P.W.2 one B.Venkata Subbarao the tenant of a neighbouring non-residential premises and also Ex.A.1 receipt filed by him and contended that both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority did not appreciate the evidence properly though the said evidence shows that the locality in which the petition schedule premises is situate is a very busy commercial locality and the rental values have gone up. He also argued that having regard to the locality which is very busy commercial area the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 examined by the tenant is of no consequence and having regard to the rent paid by P.W.2, the appellate authority should have enhanced the rent as claimed by the landlord. I shall deal with this rent paid by P.W.2 a little later. 6. On the other hand Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant, argued that the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 i.e. the landlord and his two witnesses would show that the rental values have not at all gone up and in fact the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority committed an error in enhancing the fair rent and he therefore argued that the said orders should be set aside and the agreed rent should be maintained. 7. The point that now arises for determination in these three CRPs is whether the fair rent for the petition schedule premises should be increased to Rs.4,410/- or any reasonable amount per month as claimed by the landlord or should it be maintained at the agreed rent as claimed by the tenant. 8. The respective contentions of the landlord and tenant on the point and also the evidence let in by them have already been set out supra. It may be noted that the landlord is mainly relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 B.Venkata Subbarao who admittedly is a tenant in a non-residential accommodation of 375 sq. ft. belonging to a temple. Ex.A.1 receipt filed by the landlord and pertaining to the rent paid by the P.W.2 would show that he is paying Rs.4,000/- per month for that accommodation. It should however be noted that even P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that his accommodation is of 15' x 25' and that it works out to 375 sq. ft. which is larger than the accommodation of petition schedule premises and therefore the rent paid by P.W.2 cannot be treated as a rent paid for similar accommodation. 9. It should however be noted that the accommodation of P.W.2 is just nearby the petition schedule premises whether it is adjacent to it or whether it is in front of it as claimed by the tenant’s counsel and both are located in the same area or locality. At the same time, the evidence of R.W.1 and R.Ws.2 and 3 who are the other tenants would show that they are old tenants in the said area and of-course they spoke about low rental values. 10. It may be noted that in a revision this Court is not supposed to interfere in the matter just because a different view is possible on the evidence where the evidence is considered by the appellate authority. At the same time, it is also settled that this Court can interfere where an unreasonable inference is drawn by the appellate authority from the evidence brought on record. A perusal of the evidence would show that no definite material is forthcoming as to what exactly is the rental value in that locality for a non- residential accommodation per square foot. The landlord is relying upon only the rent paid by P.W.2 and of-course the tenancy of P.W.2 commenced in January 2002. A perusal of the appellate authority’s order would show that it fixed the sum of Rs.1200/- per month at lump sum on its own imagination. No doubt the accommodation of the petition schedule premises is 220.5 sq. ft. as contended by the learned counsel for the landlord but at the same time it should be noted that there is a staircase in that accommodation and the accommodation available for the tenant in that premises is under that stair case. Going by the present standards of business, a businessman may not like to start a fancy store or other fancy business or any other attractive business which should be prominently visible to the public in an accommodation which is under a stair case. It appears that that is why as the tenant is doing tailoring work and as tailoring work can be done even behind a screen he is occupying the said premises. 11. All said and done the fact remains that the accommodation of the tenant is under a staircase but at the same time it is also in a busy locality. It should be noted that the rent of Rs.4,000/- paid by P.W.2 for 375 sq. ft. works out to Rs.10.67 ps per square foot per month. Having regard to the petition schedule accommodation of 220.5 sq. ft. and the fact that it is under a staircase and the locality in which it is situate, I am of the opinion that the fair rent can be fixed at Rs.6-50 ps per square foot per month taking into account the rent paid by P.W.2 for a more suitable and convenient accommodation. That works out to Rs.1,430/- per month and having regard to the fraction i.e. 0.5, I am of the opinion that the fair rent can be rounded off to Rs.1,500/- per month. The landlord shall be entitled to this fair rent from the date of his petition in the trial Court. 11. Accordingly the CRPs filed by the tenant i.e. C.R.P.Nos.2802 and 2984 of 2007 are dismissed and the CRP filed by the landlord i.e. C.R.P.No.1709 of 2007 is partly allowed. There shall be no costs in all the CRPs. The landlord shall be at liberty to recover the arrears towards the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rent now fixed. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 2nd February, 2011 CVRK