Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1373 (AP)

Kesar Bai v. D. Kamal Kumar

2014-11-12

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

body2014
Order M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. This civil revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 ('the Act' for brevity) by the petitioner/tenant is directed against the orders dated 14.02.2011 of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad passed in R.A. No. 134 of 2008 confirming the orders dated 16.05.2008 of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad made in R.C. No. 381 of 2004 filed by the landlord under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. The original tenant died during the pendency of the rent control case and her legal heir is the present tenant. In this revision, the parties shall be referred to as the revision petitioner/tenant and the respondent/landlord for convenience and clarity. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record. 3. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the fair rent fixed by the learned Additional Rent Controller at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month in respect of the petition schedule property in the occupation of the tenant is not just and fair as contended by the tenant? And, if so, whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? 4. POINT: 4. (a) The jural relationship between the parties is admitted. The petition schedule property is a mulgi bearing No. 15-8-20 situate at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. As on the date of the filing of the petition, the tenant is paying a rent of Rs. 80/- per month. Stating that the schedule property is situated in an important commercial locality of Hyderabad City i.e., at Siddiamber Bazar, and that the cost of living has gone up and the money value has come down and that the construction cost is on the rise and that the value of immovable property has increased by leaps and bounds and that the rent being paid by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month for the petition schedule mulgi, which is in the prime commercial locality and in the midst of commercial establishments, is not a fair rent, the landlord seeks fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 80/- per month for the petition schedule mulgi, which is in the prime commercial locality and in the midst of commercial establishments, is not a fair rent, the landlord seeks fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The tenant had filed a counter admitting the relationship and also the quantum of rent being paid by him and had inter alia contended as follows:- 'The petitioner who is the owner of the property is trying to approbate and reprobate by claiming enhancement of rent on one hand and seeking eviction of the tenant from the property on the ground that the building is an old one and requires demolition on the other. The landlord is not entitled to claim enhancement of rent on the ground of prevailing market rent by simultaneously taking a plea that the building is unfit for occupation and requires demolition. No grounds as mentioned in the provision of Section 4 of the Act are made out and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.' During the course of enquiry before the learned Additional Rent Controller, P.Ws. 1 to 3 and R.W. 1 were examined and exhibits P1 to P41 were marked. On merits, the learned Additional Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month and directed that the same is payable from the date of the petition. The said orders were confirmed in the appeal filed by the tenant. Therefore, the tenant is before this court. 4. (b) At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the tenant would contend that the landlord did not produce adequate material for fixation of fair rent for the schedule mulgi at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month and that the courts below had failed to see that the existing monthly rent for the mulgies in the locality is only Rs. 700/- per month and that the rent fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month in the absence of positive material evidence adduced by the landlord is not a fair rent. 4. (c) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord would submit that the tenant is paying from the inception the same rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month in the absence of positive material evidence adduced by the landlord is not a fair rent. 4. (c) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord would submit that the tenant is paying from the inception the same rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month for the petition schedule mulgi, which is in a very important commercial locality of Hyderabad city and which is located amidst of commercial establishments, and that the said rent is a very meagre rent and that the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month fixed by the learned Additional Rent Controller and confirmed by the learned Chief Judge is just and fair, in any view of the matter, and that the well considered orders of the courts below do not call for interference as at no point of time the rent was enhanced from the inception in spite of the fact that the property values and rental values of immovable properties have gone up and so also the cost of the living. 5. I have carefully perused the pleadings and the evidence on record. P.W. 1 had reiterated his pleaded case in his evidence and also examined his father and uncle as P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 3 is stated to have let out his premises in the same locality to tenants. All the witnesses had consistently deposed that the petition schedule mulgi is in a prime business locality and that it would fetch a rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month if leased out. On the other hand, P.W. 1 had deposed that the schedule premises is measuring about 13 x 7 feet and that he is carrying on retail cloth business and that even according to the version of the landlord the building is in a dilapidated condition and is unfit for occupation and therefore, the petition schedule mulgi is not comparable to other business establishments in the same locality. It is borne out by evidence that the petition schedule property is in a commercial locality and there are shops dealing with businesses in novelty, cosmetics and cloths and that there are also shops dealing with general goods in Siddiamber Bazar area and that Begum Bazar, which is nearby, is famous for cosmetics and wholesale businesses. It is borne out by evidence that the petition schedule property is in a commercial locality and there are shops dealing with businesses in novelty, cosmetics and cloths and that there are also shops dealing with general goods in Siddiamber Bazar area and that Begum Bazar, which is nearby, is famous for cosmetics and wholesale businesses. R.W. 1 deposed in his evidence that similar/identical shops in the locality are fetching rents at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- or Rs. 1,500/- and that the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- is being paid for the shops, which are double the size of the petition schedule property. The tenant is paying the same rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- since 1970 and there is no enhancement of rent for more than 40 years is an admitted and established fact. As per the ratio in the decision in Raton Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, AIR 1986 SC 1444 , the court can take judicial notice of enormous and manifold increase in the rents. Therefore, having regard to the evidence and the admitted factual position, the learned Rent Controller had fixed fair rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month. The said fair rent as fixed by the learned Additional Rent Controller was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge by the impugned orders. 6. Viewed thus, this court finds that there is no merit in the revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.