HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5024 & 5025 of 2007 and 1538 of 2008 and C.R.P.M.P.No.6660 of 2007 in C.R.P.No.5024 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These three civil revision petitions are disposed of together since they pertain to same property and also against common judgment dated 08.06.2007 in R.A.Nos.241 and 255 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as landlord and tenant. C.R.P.No.5024 of 2007 is filed by the tenant challenging the order of dismissal of R.A.No.255 of 2004; C.R.P.No.5025 of 2007 is filed by the tenant challenging the order of enhancement of fair rent at Rs.5,000/- per month in R.A.No.241 of 2004; and C.R.P.No.1538 of 2008 is filed by the landlord challenging the order of enhancement of fair rent at Rs.5,000/- per month instead of fixing at Rs.16,000/-. The landlord was aggrieved in not fixing the rent @ Rs.16,000/- per month and the tenant is aggrieved in enhancing the rent. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the revision petition, are as under: The landlord filed petition in R.C.No.420 of 2000 under Section 4 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short ‘the Act’) for fixing fair rent at Rs.16,000/- alleging that the tenant has been running medical and general stores in the schedule premises under the name and style of New Green Stores and Medicals. The schedule premises is located on the main road in a completely commercial area and it will fetch rent of Rs.16,000/- per month excluding electricity and water charges and the tenant is paying a meagre amount of Rs.220/- per month and that was not enhanced for the last more than 20 years. Hence, fair rent of the schedule premises has to be fixed @Rs.16,000/- per month on the basis of prevailing rental values in the area from the schedule premises is located. The tenant filed counter alleging that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to fix the rent as per sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 4 of the Act being ultra vires, and that in view of striking down sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 4 becomes unavailable, as such there are neither guidelines nor principles in fixing the fair rent by the Rent Controller under the Act. It is also alleged that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to fix the rent more than Rs.1,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that the person who signed the petition is not competent to sign and initiate proceedings on behalf of the landlord and he has no authority to file the said petition. It is also the case of the tenant that the landlord never affected repairs to keep the building in habitable condition. It is also stated that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for the last more than 40 years and the tenant himself has been effecting repairs to the schedule premises at his own cost in pursuance of the orders passed in R.C.No.343 of 2000 filed by him under Section 19 of the Act by investing huge amount. It is also stated that the landlord has been collecting the same rent for the last more than 20 years without any grievance, but he has filed the present application for fixation of fair rent only after eviction petition in R.C.No.184 of 1981 filed by the landlord was dismissed. Tenant also denied that the schedule premises is located in prime commercial area. It is also contended that considering the age of the building and other circumstances, the agreed rent of Rs.220/- per month cannot be said to be unfair and the landlord has no right to claim any enhancement of rent and the tenant in order to purchase peace is agreeable to pay the enhanced rate of rent at Rs.440/- per month without causing any prejudice to his rights. The Rent Controller after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, allowed the petition filed by the landlord for fixing of fair rent and fixed fair rent at Rs.1,450/- per month directing the tenant to pay the same rate of rent from the date of the petition. Unhappy with the fixation of fair rent at Rs.1,450/- per month, the landlord filed R.A.No.241 of 2004; and feeling aggrieved by the said enhancement of rent, the tenant filed R.A.No.255 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge, by common judgment dated 08.06.2007, partly allowed the R.A.No.241 of 2004 filed by the landlord, fixing the fair rent at Rs.5,000/- per month for the petition schedule premises from the date of filing of the petition in R.C.No.420 of 2000, but dismissed the R.A.No.255 of 20004 preferred by the tenant. Challenging the said common judgment, the present three revisions are filed. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the tenant contends that P.W.1 is not the competent and authorized person to act and represent on behalf of the landlord, as such the petition for fixation of fair rent itself is not maintainable as the same is signed by an incompetent person. He further contended that the eviction petition filed by the landlord in R.C.No.417 of 2000 was dismissed on 10.08.2006 holding that P.W.1 is not authorized person to sign on behalf of the landlord company and the said judgment has become final and to substantiate the same he filed C.R.P.M.P.No.6660 of 2007 in C.R.P.No.5024 of 2007 to receive the said order as additional in the present revision. He also contended that the landlord has not led any evidence to show that what was the rent prevailing in that area where the petition schedule premises is situated. He further contended that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no evidence on record for fixing the rent of the premises and the appellate Court has rejected the evidence of P.W.2 and also Ex.P.1, as such except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no other evidence to suggest for increase of rent as claimed by the landlord. He further contended that the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller at Rs.1,450/- and enhancement of rent of Rs.5,000/- by the appellate Court is erroneous and not based on any evidence, and that unless there is evidence to fix fair rent, it is not proper for the Courts to fix the rent on assumptions and presumptions and the Courts below erred in fixing the rent. He further contended that in the same premises, one of the tenants was paying Rs.500/-, which was newly provided mulgi to the said tenant, as such the enhancement of rent in this case is exorbitant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that the rent was fixed somewhere long back nearly in the year 1979 and there was no enhancement of rent later. It is also contended that the schedule premises is situated in the heart of city, near Railway Station and other commercial establishments, it is on main road, which is 80 feet wide road, as such there is lot of potential and the rental value is very high and fixation of fair rent at Rs.5,000/- per month is on lower side and the Courts below should have fixed fair rent @Rs.16,000/- per month. He further contended that admittedly the schedule premises is in the heart of city, as such by taking judicial notice of the fact, rent for the same premises @Rs.220/- per square feet cannot be said to be reasonable. He contends that though the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the rent was not for fixed 22 years and after holding that the property is in heart of the city and located in commercial area and the appellate Court has only fixed Rs.5,000/- per month, which is meagre. He further contended that P.W.1 has clearly deposed regarding location of the schedule premises and other aspects, which itself is sufficient for fixing the fair rent @Rs.16,000/- per month. As far as the contention of the tenant that P.W.1 is not competent to sign eviction petition on behalf of the landlord is concerned, the tenant himself admitted that he has filed R.C.No.343 of 2000 under Section 19 of the Act and obtained permission to effect repairs to the schedule premises, he has preferred R.A.No.29 of 1988 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad showing P.W.1 as Managing Director of the landlord’s company. If really, P.W.1 is not authorized to sue or to be sued representing the landlord’s company, the question of filing R.A.No.29 of 1988 by the tenant showing P.W.1 as the Managing Director of the landlord’s company does not arise. P.W.1 also filed R.C.No.184 of 1981 for eviction of the tenant and it is not the case of the tenant that he has taken the same plea regarding the competency of P.W.1 to file eviction petition in R.C.No.184 of 1981 on behalf of the landlord company and moreover the tenant admittedly filed R.A.No.29 of 1988 against the landlord’s company represented by P.W.1 being the Managing Director of the same. The Court below by considering the above facts and by relying on judgment of Supreme Court Union Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar[1] held that P.W.1 had authority to initiate proceedings on behalf of the landlord’s company and to sign the petition on its behalf. As such, I do not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the appellate Court. In view of the same, the claim of the tenant that P.W.1 has no authority to act on behalf of the landlord’s company is rejected. It is also to be seen that the tenant himself filed proceedings of the landlord’s company dated 23.11.2006 at page 150 of the paper book, wherein the Board of Directors of MDK Hotel Enterprises Private Limited i.e., landlord’s company authorizing P.W.1 to institute, prosecute and defend all legal proceedings for and on behalf of the company and it is also stated that the Board ratifies all the acts of P.W.1 in instituting, prosecuting and defending legal proceedings for and on behalf of the company. C.R.P.M.P.No.6660 of 2007 filed by the tenant is allowed and the order passed in R.C.No.417 of 2000 is marked as Ex.R.7 on behalf of the tenant and the same does not affect the right of P.W.1 to sign on behalf of the landlord’s company, in view of above discussion. As regards the fixation of fair rent, it is to be seen that the rent was Rs.130/- even prior to 1969 and at the time of inception of the tenancy it was Rs.105/-. It is also to be seen that the tenant admitted during his cross-examination that he has paid the rent @Rs.220/- per month till 1979 and paying the same rent for the last so many years without enhancing. It is also admitted by the tenant that there is no enhancement for the last 27 years since the landlord has not demanded to enhance the rent. The tenant was also agreeable to enhance the rent double the existing rent to avoid litigation. In the present case, the plinth area of the premises is 745 sq.feet and the width of the road in front of the premises is 80 feet. It is also admitted fact that the schedule premises is located on the side of public garden road and it is facing the road. It is also the case of the landlord that the schedule premises is located near railway station in the heart of Hyderabad city, adjacent to many non-residential complexes and on that basis the claims fair rent at Rs.16,000/- per month. In this case, admittedly the tenant has been running medical and general stores for the last 40 years successfully. As stated supra, it is a busy commercial locality and the tenant himself agreed to double the rent, which goes to show that there is increase in business in the area. The appellate Court took judicial notice and basing on the location of the schedule premises and the probability of increase in the rent by the authorities for the last more than 20 years basing on the judgments in Miss Liza Arulanandam vs. Smt. A.S.Sulochana[2] and in Rattan Arya, etc., vs. State of Tamilnadu and another[3] wherein the Apex Court held that fair rent means, reasonable rent, based upon factors, as to prime location of house, important amenities to the house like water supply, etc., and the court can go beyond the date of filing application in fixing fair rent and it is also held that the Court can take judicial notice and the enormous manifold increase of rents, throughout the country, particularly in urban areas. Due to rapid industrialization to rapid growth and Hyderabad being capital of Andhra Pradesh State, it cannot be said that the rent fixed at Rs.5,000/- for the premises ad measuring 745 sq.feet situated in the heart of the city near to railway station and adjoining commercial complexes is on higher side. The appellate Court by taking all factors into account and by relying on the principles enunciated by the Apex Court, rightly fixed the rent. I am in agreement with the view taken by the appellate Court and accordingly confirm the same. Accordingly, these three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed while confirming the common judgment dated 08.06.2007 in L.R.A.Nos.241 and 255 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these three revisions, shall stand disposed of. ____________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 24-07-2013 siva HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5024 & 5025 of 2007 and 1538 of 2008 and C.R.P.M.P.No.6660 of 2007 in C.R.P.No.5024 of 2007 Date: 24-07-2013 siva [1] AIR 1997 SC 3 [2] APLJ 1991(1) SC 37 [3] AIR 1986 SC 1944