1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2009 Pareldas Sadhumal Godhani Vs. Sharafali Ahamadali Hydry Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Dhore, Counsel for petitioner. Shri D. N. Kukdey Counsel for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 22nd JUNE, 2009. Heard. This Writ Petition is preferred against the order passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Additional Collector whereby the fair rent of the suit premises was challenged. 2 Petitioner is a tenant and respondent is a landlord. Respondent land lord let out the open plot to the petitioner in the year 1985. Initially rent was Rs. 100/- P. M. which came to be increased to Rs. 300/- in 1990. Respondent later filed an application 2 before the Rent Controller for determination of the fair rent in the year 1992-93. Rent Controller recorded the evidence of the parties and found that fair rent of the premises was Rs. 500/- P. M. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector. Additional Collector after hearing the parties concurred with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Tenant feels aggrieved thereby. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that the order of the Additional Collector in appeal would show that the learned Collector in fact found that there was no evidence to hold that fair rent should be Rs. 500/- P. M. He submits that the Additional Collector has not considered the evidence on record at all and in fact when he found that there was no evidence he should not have confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. This submission does not appear to me to be correct. 3. I have gone through the order of the Rent Controller. Rent Controller has observed in the order that it was suggested to the applicant, that is the present respondent, in the cross examination on behalf of the petitioner that the rent of certain persons was such and such and that suggestion in the cross examination was accepted by the applicant. Rent Controller has 3 precisely relied on that suggestion and acceptance of the same. The evidence therefore clearly goes to show that Abdul Wahab was paying Rs. 700/- P. M. towards open space of 400 sq. ft. while Pathan was paying Rs. 220/- for open space of 200 sq. ft. The Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority has considered this evidence to be enough to hold that such premises could fetch Rs. 500/- P. M. Area of the said premises is more than 400 sq. ft. In the circumstances it appears to me that the appellate authority has considered the oral evidence on record about the rent in surrounding areas and have rightly concluded that the suit premises should fetch Rs. 500/- P. M. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in the Writ Petition. There is no perversity shown in the appreciation of the evidence. In the circumstances there is no substance in the petition. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 4 5 6