THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3989 of 2005 Dated 27th January, 2011 Between: K.Ramulu …Petitioner And G.Lakshmi and 3 others …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3989 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the landlord. He filed R.C.No.303 of 2000 under Section 4 of the A.P.Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 before the Rent Controller, Secunderabad for fixing of fair rent for the premises, in question, at Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of that petition. After a contest, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of disposal of that petition. Questioning the same, the tenants filed Rent Appeal i.e., R.A.No.205 of 2002 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority i.e., the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad partly allowed that appeal on 09- 06-2005 reducing the fair rent fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month by the Rent Controller to Rs.1,200/- per month and granted it from the date of the petition before the Rent Controller. Questioning that order, the landlord has come up with this revision. 2. It must be mentioned here, at the outset, that the landlord is said to be a mentally retarded person and he is represented by his guardian i.e., his younger brother K.Naabhushanam, and it is seen that he has been permitted by the Rent Controller to conduct the case on his behalf. This was also upheld by the appellate court and that is not the issue now. 3. The only point that arises for determination in this revision is: Whether the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad was correct in reducing the fair rent from Rs.1,500/- per month fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs.1,200/- per month? 4. It is seen that respondents have been served notice, but they did not appear. 5. Sri Chintala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the respondents have since vacated the premises and therefore, they have not turned up. He however canvassed about the correctness of the order of the appellate Court in reducing the fair rent to Rs.1,200-00 per month. His main contention is that the premises, in question, is a non residential premises and it is situated in an area called General Bazar’ Secunderabad which is said to be a very busy commercial area and in fact, the Rent Controller himself ought to have fixed the fair rent at Rs.2,500/- per month, as claimed by the landlord, but he erroneously fixed it at Rs.1,500/- per month and that was further reduced by the appellate authority to Rs.1,200/- per month without any basis. He further argues that atleast the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller should be maintained. 6. A perusal of the order of the Rent Controller would show that he mainly relied upon a decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Ratan Arya Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in A.I.R.1986 Supreme Court 1444 wherein it was held that the Courts can take of judicial notice of enormous increase in the prices of immovable properties and also rents, particularly about the properties situated in urban areas and having regard to this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Rent Controller, having regard to the fact that cost of living and cost of maintenance of property has increased, has fixed it at Rs.1,500/- per month. The learned Additional Chief Judge also considered about the increase in the cost of living and prices, but he concluded that since the tenants were paying Rs.800/- per month from 1997, he held that by 2002 the increase in price index may not be more than 40% to 50% and in that view of the matter, he reduced the fair rent to Rs.1,200/- per month i.e., 50% extra of Rs.800/-, which was earlier being paid. This finding of the Additional Chief Judge is assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the landlord has failed to examine the neighbouring land owners or the property owners to show what were the prevailing rental values in the area, in which this premises is situated, to determine the fair rent by a comparison with the said rental values. The Additional Chief Judge adverted to this aspect. It may be noted that P.W.1 is the guardian of the petitioner, while P.W.2 is an Architect and both of them only spoke about the capital cost of the property, in question. They did not speak about the comparative rental values in the concerned locality, where the premises in question is situated. Having observed that in the absence of such direct evidence regarding the rent values prevailing in the locality, the learned Additional Chief Judge took into account the increase in the cost of price index and held that increase would be 40% to 50% more, and on that premise, he reduced the rent to Rs.1,200/- per month i.e., 50% extra of the sum of Rs.800/- which was being paid earlier. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that since General Bazar of Secunderabad is a busy commercial locality, this court can take judicial notice of that fact and fix the fair rent. 9. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any evidence relating to comparative rental values, it would not be proper for this Court or any other Court to fix up fair rent on imagination. In my opinion, the learned Additional Chief Judge gave cogent reasoning to reach the conclusion, which he has reached and in fixing the fair rent at Rs.1,200-00 per month. I am of the opinion that the order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, which calls for interference by this Court. As already mentioned supra, it is reported by the petitioner’s counsel that the tenants have since long vacated the premises. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in this revision. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 27th January, 2011 VJL