P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenant in both the Courts below is the revision petitioner. This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant aggrieved by an order of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, Hyderabad in RA No. 113 of 1997 dated 25-2-1999 confirming the order made in RC No. 303 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, secunderabad dated 25-2-1997. ( 2 ) THE parties, for the purpose of convenience, will be referred to as landlady and tenant. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the landlady filed RC No. 303 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, secunderabad under Section 4 of the A. P. Buildings, (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for fixation of fair rent. The landlady had averred that she is the absolute owner of the premises and the rent was at Rs. 60/- in the year 1970 and the rent was very low when compared with the market prevailing rental values and the rental values in the locality had increased tremendously and the premises would fetch Rs. 1,000/- as fair rent per month exclusive of electricity charges. The tenant had filed a counter denying the allegations and had stated that he had been paying the rent at the rate of rs. 130/- per month exclusive of electricity charges and he had also spent Rs. 2,000/- for construction of drainage lines and also walls of toilet in September, 1995 and the portion consists of only one room, one varandah partly closed and the other varandah is made into kitchen like place and there is no water connection to the petition schedule premises and hence the demand of the landlady is unreasonable. In the Court of first instance, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the landlady and Exs. Pl to P3 were marked and the tenant got himself examined as RW1. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of the family settlement deed dated 27-4-1992; Ex. P2 is the certified copy of sketch plan and Ex. P3 is the valuation report issued by the valuer dated 3-9-1996. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the landlady and Exs. Pl to P3 were marked and the tenant got himself examined as RW1. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of the family settlement deed dated 27-4-1992; Ex. P2 is the certified copy of sketch plan and Ex. P3 is the valuation report issued by the valuer dated 3-9-1996. The Court of first instance while answering on the point as to whether the petitioner is entitled for fixation of fair rent after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence in detail at paras 11 to 15 ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that fixation of fair rent at Rs. 900/- will be reasonable. The tenant aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller preferred ra No. 113 of 1997 on the file of the additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad and the learned appellate authority also had dismissed the appeal by an order dated 25-2-1999 and aggrieved by the same the tenant had preferred the present revision. ( 4 ) SRI B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel representing the tenant/revision petitioner, had strenuously contended that both the Courts below had gone wrong in appreciating the evidence of PW2 and also the valuation report issued by the valuer ex. P3. The learned Counsel had pointed out several infirmities in Ex. P3. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to para 7 of the petition where it is specified that the petition schedule property was constructed more than fifty years ago and the same is situate at Picket, Secunderabad. The learned counsel had pointed out that there is an admission made by the landlady herself in the pleading and evidently the valuer had not given the correct particulars and hence estimated the age of the building as twenty years. The learned Counsel also had strenuously contended that this aspect clearly goes to show that without verifying any official records and without applying the mind the valuer had given the report and the same cannot be made basis for fixation of fair rent. The learned Counsel also had contended that no independent witnesses had been examined and no official records have been perused and since the valuation is not based on any record whatsoever, the orders of both the Courts below are vitiated. The learned Counsel also had contended that no independent witnesses had been examined and no official records have been perused and since the valuation is not based on any record whatsoever, the orders of both the Courts below are vitiated. ( 5 ) SRI K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel representing the landlady had in his own gentle style made the following submissions: The property was let out in the year 1970 and ultimately the rent of rs. 130/- was being paid only from the year 1976 and after a long lapse of time in the year 1995 the landlady had filed RC No. 303 of 1995 for fixation of fair rent. Since the rent Control Case itself was filed after a long gape it is but reasonable that the Courts below had concurrently arrived at a conclusion that the fair rent has to be fixed at Rs. 900/- per month. The learned Counsel also had contended that it is not a case where there is no evidence on record at all. But it is a case where the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is available on record coupled with Ex. P3 the report of the valuer. Even otherwise though the valuer had opined that higher rent is payable, in exercise of the discretion, the Courts below had rightly fixed the rent at Rs. 900/- per month. This is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below which does not warrant any interference under Section 22 of the Act. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 7 ) BEFORE adverting to the submissions made by both the Counsel it is pertinent to note that in the decision reported in suresh Gir v. Sahadev, 1998 (1) ALD 25 = 1997 (6) ALT 436 (DB), the Division bench of this Court held that sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act laying criteria for determination of fair rent are unconstitutional but however it was held that sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the act is valid. It may be appropriate to look into Section 4 (1) of the Act, which reads thus :"the Controller shall, on an application by the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit. It may be appropriate to look into Section 4 (1) of the Act, which reads thus :"the Controller shall, on an application by the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit. "it is pertinent to note that all the other criteria specified by the section were held to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench. Hence the Court of first instance and also the appellate authority, after taking the relevant factors into consideration and on the basis of evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and the valuer s report Ex. P3, had fixed fair rent at Rs. 900/- per month. The appellate authority, in fact, was pleased to observe as follows: "having regard to all relevant factors, I am of the opinion that fair rent could be fixed at Rs. 900/- per month as has been done by the trial Court i. e. , Rs. 500/- for pucca room and Rs. 200/- each for other two rooms. Hence, it may appear to be odd to enhance the rent from Rs. 130/- to Rs. 900/- at a single stretch. But the fact remains that right from 1986 the rent was not enhanced. Had it been enhanced from time to time for the last about one and half a decade it would not have appeared to be so and perhaps it might have surpassed the said figure. Now it is settled law that the Rent Controller has got the power to fix fair rent under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, after taking into consideration certain factors such as the locality, age of the buildings, fair market value and the prevailing rents in the same locality, municipal taxes, annual repairs, value of the land and depreciation etc. It appears from the evidence of PW2 who is a valuer that after taking the relevant factors into consideration he has arrived at Rs. 1,590/- to be the monthly fair rent for the petition premises vide Ex. P3 report. In the aforesaid circumstances it appears that the trial Court was not wrong in arriving at and fixing the monthly rent at Rs. 900/- in respect of the petition premises and the same appears to be reasonable in view of the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex. P3 commission report. P3 report. In the aforesaid circumstances it appears that the trial Court was not wrong in arriving at and fixing the monthly rent at Rs. 900/- in respect of the petition premises and the same appears to be reasonable in view of the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex. P3 commission report. " these observations and the relevant discussion of the appellate authority clearly go to show that the appellate authority also had considered the aspects involved in the matter. However Sri Nalini kumar had pointed out the infirmities in ex. B3 and had strenuously contended that non-appreciation of these contentions raised relating to Ex. P3 will definitely vitiate the order of the Court below. The following are the infirmities pointed out in ex. P3. " (A) the valuer does not know age of the building. He claimed that the age of the building is 20 years but the respondent in her own petition admitted that the building is more than 50 years old. (b) the valuer did not know the correct plinth area of the premises, namely, he stated that the plinth area is 322 square feet but in fact it is only about 226 square feet. (c) the valuer did not obtain the relevant and necessary documents namely certificate from the Sub-Registrar s Office, Municipal assessment order but arbitrarily and out of his own imagination fixed the rate of rent at rs. 1,590/- P. M. without any basis and without any rational criteria. (d) the valuer grossly exaggerated the value of the building and calculated the rent at 10% of the value of the property. (e) the valuer did not know the correct location of the premises and also failed to examine whether the premises are provided with basic amenities. "it is no doubt true that there are certain variations that the valuer had fixed a higher rent but the Court below taking into consideration all other relevant aspects had fixed fair rent at Rs. 900/- only. This is a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below and inasmuch as it is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below on material available on record I cannot hold, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, that it is a perverse finding or a finding based on no evidence. 900/- only. This is a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below and inasmuch as it is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below on material available on record I cannot hold, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, that it is a perverse finding or a finding based on no evidence. Hence while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act i am not inclined to disturb the orders of the Court below. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances, I make no order as to costs.