IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5519 of 2009 Between: Nakka Rejasekhar. … Petitioner And Vanapandu Varalakshmi. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5519 OF 2009 ORDER:- The unsuccessful tenant in the courts below filed this revision challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in dismissing the appeal R.C.A.No.21 of 2006, dated 10.08.2009 confirming the fixation of fair rent at Rs.2,000/- per month by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in R.C.C.No.13 of 2003, dated 28.08.2006. The respondent/land lady filed R.C.C.No.13 of 2003 for fixation of fair rent to the scheduled premises not less than Rs.2,000/- per month, apart from filing R.C.C.No.14 of 2003 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement and subleasing the property. The rent controller by a common order dated 28.08.2006, while allowing R.C.C.No.13 of 2003 fixing the fair rent at Rs.2,000/- per month, dismissed R.C.C.No.14 of 2003. Aggrieved by the dismissal of R.C.C.No.14 of 2003, the landlady preferred appeal, which was allowed. Pursuant to the same, the tenant had already been evicted. Questioning the fixation of fair rent, the tenant filed the present R.C.A.No.21 of 2006, which has been dismissed by the Appellate Court confirming the fixation of fair rent by the trial court. In order to prove the fair rent, the respondent/landlady apart from examining herself as P.W.1, also examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2, who is owning a building in the same street, where the four buildings intervene between the suit schedule premises, deposed that he let out a similar portion in his building on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- per month and P.W.3, who is residing in the same locality, deposed that he is paying a rent of Rs.600/- for a small room, which is adjacent to the schedule property. P.W.3, corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 that the petition schedule property, consisting of four big rooms, fetches not less than Rs.2,000/- of rent per month . The appellate court after taking into consideration, the above evidence, held that even though the tenant, contended that the schedule property is situated in the slum area, he has not produced any evidence to establish the same nor examined any witness to prove that the suit schedule premises does not fetch Rs.2,000/- per month, whereas the tenant who was examined as R.W.1 in the cross-examination deposed that the property is situated in Ambedkar Nagar between the cloth market and the bye-pass road and there are residential houses in Ambedkar Nagar. Holding so, the appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the trial court in fixation of fair rent. In view of the same, the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 5th February 2010 lmv