ORDER : 1. The petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 are the wife and husband respectively who are the tenants, whereas, the petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017 is the landlady. All these four civil revision petitions are filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘Act’), arising out of a common issue, as such it is just and expedient to decide all revision petitions by common order. 2. The facts in C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 are dealt with for better appreciation of the case. C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 are filed aggrieved by the orders in R.A.No.174 & 175 of 2016 dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, which, in-turn were preferred against the order in R.C.No.170 & 169 of 2014 dated 29.07.2016 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. 3. For convenience sake, the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 who are the wife and husband respectively will be referred as ‘tenants’ and the respondent in C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017 will hereinafter be referred as ‘landlady’. 4. Landlady filed R.C.No.169 & 170 of 2014 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, under Section 4 of the Act, alleging that she is the owner of the building bearing municipal No.4-3-161 to 4-3-161/40 which consists of ground plus two floors situated at Ranijung, Secunderabad, having got it under a re-conveyance deed dated 19.07.1985, executed in her favour by her husband Veerabhadra Rao. Thus, she became the absolute owner of the property. It is also alleged that a mulgi bearing municipal No.4-3-161/9 & 10 admeasuring 230 sq.ft each, situated in ground floor of the above mentioned building was let out to the tenants in the year 1984 on monthly rent of Rs.200/- and Rs.150/- towards amenities charges. Tenancy was oral and as per the terms agreed between the landlady and the tenants, rent was to be paid on or before of 5th of every succeeding month and the property tax of the above mentioned non-residential premises is to be paid by the tenants. It is the case that the rent was gradually enhanced from time to time and by the date of filing R.C.Nos.169 & 170 of 2014, the rent of the mulgis bearing Nos. It is the case that the rent was gradually enhanced from time to time and by the date of filing R.C.Nos.169 & 170 of 2014, the rent of the mulgis bearing Nos. 9 & 10 in the petition schedule premises was Rs.2,000/- and the tenants has to pay Rs.100/- towards maintenance charges apart from monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. It is the contention that the tenants are carrying on business in submersible pump sets and other related items in the mulgi bearing Nos.9 & 10, which are not separated by partition wall in the above mentioned mulgis, the tenants were carrying on business under the name and style ‘Key Yess’ and ‘Rahul Enterprises’. The petition schedule premises is a commercial property and it is situated abutting to the main road leading to R.P. Road and Secunderabad Railway Station. The present rental value of a nonresidential premises in the said area is about Rs.100/- per sq.ft and the present petition schedule property fetches rent of Rs.70/- per sq.ft. It is alleged that the landlady requested the tenants to enhance the rent reasonably, but the tenants paid a deaf ear. Since, the tenants have not paid the enhanced rent, the landlady got issued a legal notice, demanding the tenants to pay the enhanced rate of rent or to vacate the petition schedule premises. In reply, the tenants stated that there is no space for parking of the vehicles and the petition schedule premises is not provided with toilet facility, whereas, the landlady states that there are toilets and washroom in the 1st and 3rd floors of the building and all the tenants including the present tenants are making use of the same. It is stated that the petition schedule premises is situated in a commercial area, where commercial activities such as banking, textiles and electronic businesses are being carried on within the vicinity. For the mulgi bearing Nos.3 & 4 where the business in the name and style ‘Galaxy Engineering’ and ‘S.V. Polipak’ are carried on, monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- is being paid to its owner by the occupants of the above said mulgis. Since, the tenants have not come forward with an offer to increase the rent reasonably, despite the several requests made by the landlady, a petition under Section 4 of the Act is filed for fixation of fair rent as the landlady has no other alternative. 5. In mulgi nos. Since, the tenants have not come forward with an offer to increase the rent reasonably, despite the several requests made by the landlady, a petition under Section 4 of the Act is filed for fixation of fair rent as the landlady has no other alternative. 5. In mulgi nos. 9 & 10 in the schedule premises taken on rent by the tenants, business is carried on sale of in submersible pumpsets and other related items under the name and style “Key Yess” and “Rahul Enterprises”. In Mulgi No. 9 in petition schedule premises, business is carrying on by the wife i.e. one of the tenant under the name and style Rahul Enterprises and she is the proprietrix of the said firm. Thus, shop nos. 9 & 10 are occupied by wife and husband in the said premises and they are carrying on business for the past few years and both have filed counter with identical allegations. Their contention was that, the built up area of the mulgi nos. 9 & 10 is not 230 sq.ft each, as contended by the landlady and that they are paying rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month apart from maintenance charges @ Rs.100/- per month. The location of the premises and the business carried on by the tenants is admitted by them, while contending that the two mulgis bearing nos. 9 & 10 are in occupation of wife and husband but their carrying on business in the name and style of “Rahul Enterprises” and “Key Yess” which are distinct firms. Wife is the proprietrix of “Rahul Enterprises” and husband is carrying on business in the name and style of the “Key Yess”. Thus, the contention that the business being carried on in both the mulgi nos.9 & 10 is one and same is denied. 6. Further, the contention of the tenants is that the petition schedule premises is situated in commercial area and the shops where the tenants are carrying on business is not facing to the main road and there is only passage of 10 feet at the entrance of the complex which is very congested and it is not possible to park their vehicles in front of the shop. Further, the premises occupied by the tenants is not provided with any amenities such a parking, toilet and water facilities. Further, the premises occupied by the tenants is not provided with any amenities such a parking, toilet and water facilities. But, it stated that, though the landlady agreed to pay municipal taxes of the petition schedule property at the time of induction of the tenants into possession of the petition schedule property, the landlady failed to pay the same and the tenants are paying the property taxes for the past 10 years. 7. Further, the tenants in occupation of mulgi bearing no.161/11 situated adjacent to the petition schedule mulgi is paying rent of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the landlady. Similarly, for the mulgi bearing no. 161/16, the landlady is getting rent of Rs. 2,700/- per month. The claim made by the landlady for fixation of fair rent of Rs.18,000/- per month from the tenants is not fair and reasonable considering the fact that the landlady is getting rent of Rs. 1,500/- per month in respect of mulgi bearing no. 161/11 and in any event, it would not fetch not more than Rs.2,000/- which should be fair and reasonable. In those circumstances the tenants sought for fixation of fair rent and prayed for dismissal of R.C.Nos.170 and 169 of 2014. 8. During trial, the landlady has got examined her husband Sri Veerabhadra Rao as PW-1 and the tenants of mulgi bearing nos. 8 & 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. Exs.X-1 to X-10 are marked through PWs 2 & 3. The tenants got examined as RW1 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. 9. In R.C.Nos.169 & 170 of 2014, the Rent Controller while deciding the claim of the landlady has partly allowed the petition under Section 4(1) of the Act, by fixing the fair rent at Rs.75/- per sq.ft in respect of the petition schedule premises and directed the tenants to pay monthly rent of Rs. 17,250/- (230 sft X Rs.75/-) in respect of the petition schedule premises from the date of filing petition. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 4(1) of the Act, the tenants in occupation preferred R.A.Nos.174 & 175 of 2016 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad. 10. The Appellate Court after hearing argument of both the counsel reduced the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs.12,500/- per month in respect of the petition schedule premises bearing nos. 4-3-161/9 & 4-3-161/10 situated at Ranigunj, Secunderabad. 10. The Appellate Court after hearing argument of both the counsel reduced the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs.12,500/- per month in respect of the petition schedule premises bearing nos. 4-3-161/9 & 4-3-161/10 situated at Ranigunj, Secunderabad. Dissatisfied with the quantum of fair fixed by the Appellate Court the tenants preferred C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017, while the landlady preferred C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017. 11. The landlady filed C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017 on the ground that reduction of fair rent fixed by the Appellate Court from Rs.17,500/- to Rs.12,500/- is not just and reasonable and the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 clinches the issue that the landlady is entitled to Rs.17,500/- per month for the mulgi nos. 9 & 10. But the Appellate Court, on erroneous appreciation of oral evidence, came to such erroneous conclusion. The fixation of fair rent by the Appellate Court is too low when compared to the rent prevailing within the vicinity of the schedule premises and that the Appellate Court has taken into consideration the relevant aspects like purpose for which the premises was put to use, the commercial potentiality of the mulgis, its location and the amenities provided to the tenants in occupation of the premises and erroneously reduced the rent from Rs.17,500/- to Rs.12,500/- for the mulgi bearing nos. 9 & 10. Though, it is contended that the plinth area of the premises is 230 sft, the contention of the tenants is that the plinth area was only 176 sft. But this contention is not based on any material. Moreover, the Appellate Court on erroneous appreciation of oral and documentary evidence committed a serious error in reduction of rent fixed by the Rent Controller substantially and the building would not fetch not less than Rs.75/- per sft and this fact is established by producing Exs.X-1 to X-10. But, the Appellate Court committed an error in reducing the quantum of rent fixed by the Rent Controller and prayed to fix fair rent at Rs. 75/- per sft. per month. 12. The tenants filed C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 contending that there is a serious dispute with regard to carpet area of the premises. But, the Appellate Court committed an error in reducing the quantum of rent fixed by the Rent Controller and prayed to fix fair rent at Rs. 75/- per sft. per month. 12. The tenants filed C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 contending that there is a serious dispute with regard to carpet area of the premises. According to the tenants, there is a passage of 10’ at the entrance of the complex and the plinth area of the mulgi is only 176 sft., but not 230 s.ft, as contended by the landlady vide Ex.R-1. That apart, the premises is situated in a bye-lane i.e. Hill-street in Secunderabad. Further, the landlady failed to establish the market rate of rent prevailing within the vicinity of schedule premises. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court did not consider the relevant aspects for fixation of pay rent or standard rent with regard to type of construction, purpose for which the mulgis are put to use, age of the building, amenities provided to the tenants in occupation of the premises and its commercial potentiality like free access to the customers and thereby, the Rent Controller committed a serious error in fixing fair rent and the Appellate Court also committed error in reducing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller and prayed to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court. 13. P.W.3, who is another tenant in mulgi bearing no. 4-3-161/ 11 and carrying on business in the name and style of M/s S.K. Enterprises is paying monthly rent of Rs.3,550/- and the total area under his occupation is 55 sqft. and the rent paid for the mulgi bearing no.4-3-161/8 was Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, fixation of pay rent at Rs.75 per sft is erroneous and prayed to set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and partly confirmed by the Appellate Court reducing the monthly rent from Rs.17,250/- to Rs12,500/- per month. 14. In view of the rival contentions, in the four revisions, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the mulgis bearing nos.4-3-161/9 & 10 would fetch an amount of Rs.12,500/- per month, based on its location, age of the premises, amenities provided, potential user, type of construction and prevailing market rate of rent etc. If so, whether the fair rent fixed either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Court is fair, just and reasonable. If so, whether the fair rent fixed either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Court is fair, just and reasonable. If not, at what rate, the fair rent in respect of the said mulgi is to be fixed or determined?” POINT: R.C.Nos.169 & 170 of 2014 are filed by the landlady under Section 4 of the Act. The tenancy, rent payable, nature of use and location of the premises are not in dispute, but the plinth area of the mulgi is in dispute. Before going into the facts of the case, it is appropriate to advert to Section 4 of the Act, which is the basis for the claim for fixation of fair rent and it reads as follows: Section 4 deals with Determination of fair rent. According to it, (1) The Controller shall, on application by the tenants or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit. (2) In fixing the fair rent under this Section, the Controller shall have due regard: (a) to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to the 5th April, 1944; (b) to the rental value as entered in the property tax assessment book of the concerned local authority relating to the period mentioned in clause (a); (c) to the circumstances of the case, including any amount paid by the tenants by way of premium or any other like sum in addition to rent after the 5th April, 1944. (3) In fixing the fair rent of residential buildings, the Controller may allow: (i) if the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub-section (2) does not exceed twenty-five rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding 12 ½ per cent, on such rate or rental value; (ii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds twenty-five rupees per mensem, but does not exceed fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding 18¾ per cent, on such rate or rental value; (iii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding 37 ½ per cent, on such rate or rental value: Provided that in the case of a residential building which has been constructed after 5th April, 1944, the percentage of increase shall not exceed 37 ½, 56 ¼ and 75 respectively. (4) In fixing the fair rent of a non-residential buildings, the Controller may allow: (i) if the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub-section (2) does not exceed fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding 56'/4 per cent, on such rate or rental value; (ii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding 75 percent, on such rate or rental value: Provided that in the case of a non-residential building which has been constructed after 5th April, 1944, the percentage of increase shall not exceed 75 and 150 respectively. (5) In the case a building for which the fair rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act, the Controller shall, on the application of the landlord, allow such increase in the fair rent as in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord is entitled to under this Section. 15. The rent fixed by the Rent Controller or any authority under the Act must be just and reasonable and fair. Since, the Rent Control Act was enacted for the purpose of beneficial legislation to the tenants only and it is originally intended to protect the weaker sections of tenants from unreasonable and unfair fixation of rent. As such, the main object of enactment of Rent Control Act is to regulate the instances of tenancy, which is inclusive of eviction and abnormal fixation of rent. As such, the main object of enactment of Rent Control Act is to regulate the instances of tenancy, which is inclusive of eviction and abnormal fixation of rent. Keeping in mind the object of the Rent Control Legislation, the Court has to determine the fair rent payable for the premises within the parameters under Section 4 of the Act or under judicial precedent. 16. There are different state enactments for every state to control the unlawful evictions, abnormal increase of rent etc. But none of the acts are identical to the acts, except the State of Tamil Nadu Building Act with slight variation. A subsection is added to original Section 4 enabling the Rent Controller to fix fair rent at certain percentage of the value of the building. Therefore, various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act can also be followed, in view of the identity of the language used in both sections, except to the extent of ‘percentage of fair rent’. 17. Section (5) of the Act permits the rent controller to increase fair rent as in the opinion of the controller and the landlord is entitled to claim such fair rent determined by the Rent Controller, after conducting necessary enquiries. But none of the parameters under Subsection 2 to 4 which were declared as unconstitutional (vide Suresh Gir v. K. Sahadev ( 1998 (1) ALD 25 ) would not form basis for fixation of fair rent. While fixing fair rent, the Court has to take into consideration the rent being paid by the tenants in adjoining shops would be fair measure for rent which the tenants should be directed to pay. (vide Syed Jameel Abbas & others vs. Mohd. Yamin @ Kallu Khan (2004) 4 SCC 781 ). 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmad & another v. Atma Ram Chauhan & Another (2011 Law Suit (SC) 545) M/s Raval and co v. K.G. Ramachandran and others (AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 818), East India Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Corporation of Calcutta (AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1789)and V.S. Kanodia and others v. A.L. Muthu (dead) through LRs and another (2012) 11 SUPREME COURT 269). Pvt. Ltd v. Corporation of Calcutta (AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1789)and V.S. Kanodia and others v. A.L. Muthu (dead) through LRs and another (2012) 11 SUPREME COURT 269). Learned counsel also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Sai Krishna General Stores v. B. Sai Anand Prasad (2003 Law Suit (AP) 999), Satesh Jain Oswal v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited (2004 Law Suit (AP) 751), Jupudi Parthasarathy v. Kondapalli Rajeshwari and others ( 2008 (6) ALT 210 )and Taramani v. Brij Gopal Lakhotiya ( 2011 (4) ALD 31 ). 19. From the law declared by the Supreme Court and this Court in the judgments referred supra, the rent prevailing within the vicinity, where the tenants premises is situated is relevant factor. Besides the rent payable to the building, the other considerations are, type of construction of the building for which the rent has to be fixed, the use of which it is put to and the amenities provided, type of construction and the beneficial use of the building are also relevant factors in determining the fair rent payable for any residential or non-residential premises by the rent controller. 20. Admittedly, the tenancy was initially contractual and after expiry of the initial period of tenancy, it was ripened into a statutory tenancy. Whether it is contractual or statutory tenancy, the Rent Controller determine fair rent on the application of either of the parties to the tenancy. 21. Whether determining fair rent or fixing fair rent under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act, there are two basic considerations which must guide the approach to the question. The first is that the agreed rent which is the result of contract between the parties must continue to bind them so long as the contract subsists, unless there is anything in the statute which expressly or by necessary implication overrides the contract. It is true that with the decline of the doctrine of laissez faire and the assumption by the State of a more dynamic and activists role, the principle of sanctity of contract which is one of the pillars of a free market economy, has in a number of cases been eroded by legislation. But if such legislation is examined, it will be apparent that this has happened invariably in aid of the weaker party to the contract. But if such legislation is examined, it will be apparent that this has happened invariably in aid of the weaker party to the contract. Where there is unequal bargaining power between the parties, freedom of contract is bound to produce injustice and social legislation therefore steps in and overrides the contract, with a view to protect the weaker party from the baneful consequences of the contract. It is to contract the injustice resulting from inequality in bargaining power and to bring about social or distributive justice that social legislation interferes with sanctity of contract. It seeks to restore the balance in the scales which are otherwise weighed in favour of the stronger party which has larger bargaining power. Ordinarily, it would be a strange and rather incomprehensible phenomenon, that legislation intervenes to disturb the sanctity of contract for the benefit of a stronger party who does not need the protective hand of the legislature. This consideration is to be kept, the Court must constantly keep before construing the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act, as its long title and preamble show, has been enacted inter alia with the object of controlling rents of residential and nonresidential buildings and preventing unreasonable eviction of tenants. Now, there can be no doubt that in so far as it is calculated to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants, the Act is a protective measure intended to safeguard tenants against indiscriminate eviction by landlords. Equally, by controlling the rents by keeping them within fair and reasonable limits, the Act seeks to protect tenants against greedy and rapacious landlords who taking advantage of the great scarcity of housing accommodation which prevails in almost all urban areas, may extract excessive and unconscionable rent from tenants. The Act is in its essential character as also in its object and purpose similar to what may conveniently be described as rent control legislation, in other States, such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh. Now it is well settled by decisions of this Court that rent control Acts are "not ordinarily intended to interfere with contractual leases and are Acts for the protection of tenants and are consequently restrictive and not enabling or conferring any rights of action but restricting the existing rights either under the contract or under the general law. (vide Raval and Co. vs. K.G. Ramachandran (referred supra). 22. (vide Raval and Co. vs. K.G. Ramachandran (referred supra). 22. Similar question with regard to fixation or determination of fair rent came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Corporation of Calcutta (referred supra). But, the issue was not directly on the question of determining the fair rent, it is with reference to Municipal Corporation Act for determining the actual monthly value of the property. There, the rent control of the State of Calcutta and Municipal Corporation was considered and held that the fair rent is the rent payable for the building. But, a formula was contained in Section 8(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act, namely 6 3/4 % per annum on the aggregate amount of the actual cost of construction and the market price of the land on the date of commencement of construction as provided in that provision. Like Tamil Nadu Act, in Calcutta Act also, a specific percentage on the actual market value shall be basis for fixation of fair rent. 23. In V.S. Kanodia and others v. A.L. Murthu (dead) through LRs and another (referred supra), the Supreme Court considered the market value of the premises for fixation of fair rent and observed that, it is apparent that market value of the site on which the building is constructed is an important factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the fair rent of the building. The mere fact that the appeals filed by the appellant tenants and the respondent landlords remained pending for disposal for more than 8 years and during the pendency, the respondent landlord filed two petitions for fixation of rent before the Rent Controller, cannot be made a ground to deprive the appellant tenants of their legitimate right to rely on the market value of the adjacent land already determined by the Rent Controller. 24. 24. Thus, the principle laid down in the above judgment under Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, consideration of the market value is one of the modes for determining the fair rent, in view of proviso (ii) to Subsection (4) of Section 4, which permits 15% of the fair rent shall be fixed not more than 15% of the market value in case of any residential building and in case of non-residential building, 25% of the cost in which the building is constructed and the cost of construction of the building is to be determined under the section. But, the principle laid down therein has no direct bearing on the issue and the A.P. Rent Control Act, was not amended suitably enabling the landlady or the tenants for determining or fixation of fair rent, basing on the value of site, like the Tamil Nadu Act. 25. In the absence of any such provision, the Rent Controller can ignore the second proviso to Subsection (4) of Section 4 under A.P. Rent Control Act and determine the rent by striking the balance between the rights of the landlady and tenants to provide protection to both landlady and tenants. 26. In view of the long line of perspective pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court referred above, the criteria for determination or fixation of fair rent, though not, contained in the State Act and based on precedents of Apex Court and other High Courts, the Court shall determine the fair rent payable for the premises, after conducting necessary enquiry, taking into consideration the location of the building, its age, amenities provided to the tenants, type of construction and the purpose for which it is put to use. 27. Admittedly, the age of the building is more than 50 years and the tenancy itself was commenced along ago i.e. in the year 1984 initially on monthly rent of Rs.200/- and Rs.150/- towards rent for the building and amenities respectively, exclusive of water and electricity charges. Therefore, in any event, the building is not less than 50 years old and none of the parties did produce any material to prove the age of the building. Therefore, in any event, the building is not less than 50 years old and none of the parties did produce any material to prove the age of the building. The landlady, though stated several aspects with regard to location, did not disclose about the age of the building, but admitted that the building consists of 50 mulgis in three floors, Ground + 3 floors, and she became the owner by virtue of re-conveyance deed executed by her husband. Except that, nothing has been stated either in the examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination about the age of the building. Similarly, RW-1 testified about commencement of initial tenancy, but did not disclose the approximate age of the building. In paragraph 10 of the examination-in-chief of R.W-1, it is stated that, since 01.01.1980 onwards, there was no development in the locality and the mulgis in dispute still remains as it is and it is stated to be true that the landlady was collecting excessive rent. Even the topography, location, size of the shop of the petition schedule mulgi also would not attract rent at the rate demanded by the landlady, since it is away to the main road. Thus, the tenants also did not disclose the age of the building. As the building was constructed to prior to 1980, by now, the age of the building would be near 38 years. Hence, the premises is sufficiently old. 28. The location of the premises is not in dispute and it is in commercial area and the building itself consists of 50 mulgis in ground + 3 floors. This itself indicates that the schedule premises is situated in commercial area and the premises is put to only commercial use and both the tenants i.e. wife and husband are carrying on business of submersible pump sets and pipes in the name and style of ‘Rahul Enterprises’ and “Key Yess’. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that the building is located in a commercial area and being put to commercial use alone. 29. Coming to the amenities provided to the building, it is the contention of the tenants that, no amenities were provided to the building like toilet, drinking water, etc. for the beneficial enjoyment of the premises but the tenants in occupation. Whereas, the landlady contended that the toilets were provided in the first and third floors of the building. But, this fact was not established. for the beneficial enjoyment of the premises but the tenants in occupation. Whereas, the landlady contended that the toilets were provided in the first and third floors of the building. But, this fact was not established. However, even assuming for a moment that there are toilets and drinking water facility provided in the first and third floor, the tenants who are in occupation of the ground floor may face difficulty to utilize the amenities by going up to the other floors of the main building. Further, constructing common toilets for 50 occupants of the shops or mulgis is another problem to any tenants to use those amenities, both toilet and drinking water, which is another factor which reduces rental value of the premises, as the occupants of the ground and third floors will be put to inconvenience to use the amenities. The mulgis in the ground floor were rented to the tenants by providing only with the amenity of electricity, but not with any other amenity. Therefore, the provision for electricity is a basic need to carry on business or to utilize the premises as a shop, which cannot be said to be a basic amenity provided to the tenants in occupation by the landlady for their beneficial enjoyment. 30. Coming to the carpet area of mulgis, the landlady contended that the mulgis bearing nos.4-6-169/9 & 10 are in an extent of 230 sft each in the ground floor (first sentence of paragraph 4 of the petitions in R.C.Nos.169 & 170 of 2014)). But, specifically in paragraph no.4 of the counter, the tenants denied and disputed the carpet area and built up area of the mulgis, but did not state as to what is the exact carpet area of the mulgi. Thus, there is a little controversy with regard to carpet area of the mulgi to fix fair rent of the premises in occupation of the tenants. 31. Adverting to the evidence of P.W.1, it is specifically stated in the penultimate paragraph of the examination in chief of P.W.1, filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C, that the carpet area of the mulgi No.4-3- 161/10 is admeasuring 230 sq.ft situated at Hill Street, Secunderabad. 31. Adverting to the evidence of P.W.1, it is specifically stated in the penultimate paragraph of the examination in chief of P.W.1, filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C, that the carpet area of the mulgi No.4-3- 161/10 is admeasuring 230 sq.ft situated at Hill Street, Secunderabad. But, curiously, the carbon copy of the rent receipt of tenants in premises bearing mulgi no.4-3-161/6, S.V. Poly Pack on the ground floor, admeasuring 215 sq.ft is placed on record and similarly the rent receipts for the premises mulgi no.4-3-161/A occupied by tenants M. Mohan & Sons admeasuring 80 sq.ft rent paid is Rs.4,000/- i.e. Rs.50/- per sq.ft and rent receipt for mulgi no.4-3-161/11, S.K. Enterprises admeasuring 55 sq.ft rent paid is Rs.3,550/- i.e. Rs.65/- per sq.ft are placed on record. But, it appears from the various rent receipts marked as Exs.P-6,7 & 8, at best would disclose that there is a variation in the carpet area of the mulgis in the building. But, the landlady did not produce any documents to prove the exact carpet area of the mulgis. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was put to him that the plinth area of the mulgis 9 & 10 is not in an extent of 230 sq.ft. Similarly, P.W.1 admitted that the Galaxy Engineering Works who is the tenant in the complex has vacated and paid rent of Rs.16,000/- per month for each shop bearing no.4-3-161/3 admeasuring 210 sq.ft. P.Ws. 2 & 3 are other witnesses and tenants who were examined to prove the prevailing market rate of rent. But, their evidence is not necessary to prove the plinth or carpet area of the building. The rough sketch (plan) marked as Ex.P-4 established the plinth area of the mulgi as 234 sq.ft. Ex.P-4 is not approved copy of the plan of the building and in the absence of any material to establish the plinth area, it is difficult to accept the contention that the plinth area of the mulgi is 230 sq.ft. One of the tenant i.e. K. Shiva Kumar-husband was examined as R.W.1. In his examination-in-chief, he asserted that the carpet area of the mulgi is 176 sq.ft covered with R.C.C. roof and he also did not produce any document to prove the plinth area, as contended by the tenants in occupation and the variation in the size of the mulgis is seriously disputed by the tenants in occupation. In his examination-in-chief, he asserted that the carpet area of the mulgi is 176 sq.ft covered with R.C.C. roof and he also did not produce any document to prove the plinth area, as contended by the tenants in occupation and the variation in the size of the mulgis is seriously disputed by the tenants in occupation. In such case, the initial onus of proof is on the landlady to prove that the carpet area of the mulgi by any mode. If, the original plan, if available, is produced before the Court, it would put an end to the controversy regarding the plinth or carpet area of the mulgis. But, none of the parties took steps to establish the plinth area of the premises and more curiously, the tenants in occupation denied rough sketch plan marked as Ex.P-4 produced by P.W.1 and therefore, there is a clear dispute with regard to plinth or carpet area and when the landlady is claiming rent @ Rs.100/- per month on the basis of plinth area, it is for her to prove the plinth or carpet area of the mulgis, since the variation is 54 sq.ft (230-176). If, the plinth or carpet area of the premises is less than the plinth area as claimed by the landlady, the tenants cannot be compelled to pay the rent at a particular rate on square feet basis for the property which they are not in possession as tenants. 32. In the cross-examination of R.W.1, the counsel could elicit that the mulgi was obtained initially on Rs.200/- p.m. of rent and Rs.150/- towards maintenance charges and it was enhanced from time to time and the rent payable on the date of filing the petition was Rs.2,000/- and Rs.100/- for maintenance of mulgi. A suggestion was put to the witness that the carpet area of the mulgi in occupation is 230 sq.ft and the same was denied by the witness flatly. The witness volunteered that the total carpet area in his occupation is 176 sq.ft, while admitting that he is maintaining an office room in Mezzanine floor, which is part the schedule premises in the same mulgi. This admission is followed by a suggestion that the respondent is using 230 sq.ft which is inclusive of Mezzanine floor of the mulgi. But, he admitted that the Mezzanine floor of mulgi bearing no.4-3-161/9 is 230 sq.ft. This admission is followed by a suggestion that the respondent is using 230 sq.ft which is inclusive of Mezzanine floor of the mulgi. But, he admitted that the Mezzanine floor of mulgi bearing no.4-3-161/9 is 230 sq.ft. Even assuming for a moment that the admissions made by the tenants are true, the plinth area of the mulgi is not exceeding 23 sq.ft and it is only about 199 sq.ft of carpet area. Therefore, in view of the facts elicited in the cross-examination, the plinth area of the mulgi is 176 sq.ft and the Mezzanine floor being used by the tenants for office purpose is 23 sq.ft, but not 230 sq.ft, as contended by the landlady. No reliance can be placed on Ex.A-4, in view of the facts elicited in the cross-examination by the landlady. Hence, I find that the carpet area of the mulgi is 176 sq.ft and the carpet area of Mezzanine floor is 23 sq.ft. Though, the landlady contended that the plinth area is 230 sq.ft, she did not produce any satisfactory and reliable evidence in support of her contention for determination of fair rent on square foot basis for the premises in occupation of the tenants. Hence, the carpet area of the mulgi is fixed at 176 sq.ft with Mezzanine floor of 23 sq.ft in mulgi no.4-3-161/9 and the other premises bearing no.4-3- 161/10 is only 176 sq.ft, since the landlady could elicit nothing in the entire cross-examination about the Mezzanine Floor of the mulgi bearing no.10 and no specific suggestion was put to witness that the plinth area of mulgi bearing no.10 is 230 sq.ft anywhere in the cross-examination. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective to determine the carpet of each mulgi in occupation of tenants who are wife and husband. But, based on Ex.P-4, concluded that the carpet area of mulgi no. 10 is 230 sq.ft and in fact, the rough sketch marked as Ex.P-4 is silent as to the Mezzanine floor and it was not their case at any stage that the tenants in occupation is using Mezzanine floor for his office and the carpet area of the premises is inclusive of the Mezzanine floor. 10 is 230 sq.ft and in fact, the rough sketch marked as Ex.P-4 is silent as to the Mezzanine floor and it was not their case at any stage that the tenants in occupation is using Mezzanine floor for his office and the carpet area of the premises is inclusive of the Mezzanine floor. In those circumstances, it is difficult to accept the findings recorded by the Court below regarding carpet area of the premises in occupation of the tenants and thus, there is a serious illegality in appreciation of evidence on record and accepted the ipxi dixit of the landlord as gospel truth to fix fair rent for the mulgis in occupation of the tenants. Hence, the findings of the Courts below are perverse and hereby modified holding that the carpet area of the mulgi no.10 is 176 sq.ft and the carpet area of mulgi no.9 is 176 sq.ft. 33. Normally, in the absence of any specific procedure for determination of fixation of fair rent after declaring part of Section 4 of the Act, as unconstitutional, the best method of determination of fair rent is the prevailing market rent within the vicinity of the schedule premises with similarly located and with similar amenities is the best guide. 34. The Supreme Court in Syed Jameel Abbas & others vs. Mohd. Yamin @ Kallu Khan (referred supra) made it clear that the same rate which is paid by the tenants in the adjoining shops would be fair measure of rent which tenants is directed to pay. 35. In Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan (referred supra), the Apex Court considered that majority of these cases are filed because landlords do not get reasonable rent akin to market rent, then on one ground or the other litigation is initiated. Therefore, the Apex Court fixed the following guidelines and norms for such type of litigation, so as to minimise landlord-tenant litigation at all levels, which are as follows: (i). The tenant must enhance the rent according to the terms of the agreement or at least by ten percent, after every three years and enhanced rent should then be made payable to the landlord. The tenant must enhance the rent according to the terms of the agreement or at least by ten percent, after every three years and enhanced rent should then be made payable to the landlord. If the rent is too low (in comparison to market rent), having been fixed almost 20 to 25 years back then the present market rate should be worked out either on the basis of valuation report or reliable estimates of building rentals in the surrounding areas, let out on rent recently. (ii). Apart from the rental, property tax, water tax, maintenance charges, electricity charges for the actual consumption of the tenanted premises and for common area shall be payable by the tenant only so that the landlord gets the actual rent out of which nothing would be deductible. In case there is enhancement in property tax, water tax or maintenance charges, electricity charges then the same shall also be borne by the tenant only. (iii). The usual maintenance of the premises, except major repairs would be carried out by the tenant only and the same would not be reimbursable by the landlord. (iv). But if any major repairs are required to be carried out then in that case only after obtaining permission from the landlord in writing, the same shall be carried out and modalities with regard to adjustment of the amount spent thereon, would have to be worked out between the parties. (v). If present and prevalent market rent assessed and fixed between the parties is paid by the tenant then landlord shall not be entitled to bring any action for his eviction against such a tenant at least for a period of 5 years. Thus for a period of 5 years the tenant shall enjoy immunity from being evicted from the premises. (vi). The parties shall be at liberty to get the rental fixed by the official valuer or by any other agency, having expertise in the matter. (vii). The rent so fixed should be just, proper and adequate, keeping in mind, location, type of construction, accessibility with the main road, parking space facilities available therein etc. Care ought to be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord. 36. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, the landlady, to substantiate her contentions and to prove the prevailing market rate of rent, she examined P.Ws. Care ought to be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord. 36. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, the landlady, to substantiate her contentions and to prove the prevailing market rate of rent, she examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and respondent also examined R.W-1. 37. Before adverting to the evidence on record, it is necessary to verify the pleadings regarding the claim of the landlady which is a judicial admission. The specific plea of the landlady is that, S.V. Polypack and Galaxy Engineers are carrying on business in mulgi nos. 3 & 4 of the same premises and paying rent of Rs.18,000/- per month. It is also further contended that the entire area covered and surrounded including petition schedule premises is totally commercial area and that the rental value prevailing in the entire commercial market is stated to be around 100 per sq.ft. per month and on the basis of location and area, as well as the market value, the premises would fetch not less than 70 sq.ft. per month by way of rent. (vide paragraph no.9 of the petition). Thus, the claim of the landlady according to her judicial admission in the petition, the building would fetch approximately Rs.70/- per sq.ft. per month and the petitioner claimed to determine fair rent @ Rs.18,000/- for the petition schedule premises bearing no.4-3-161/9 admeasuring 230 sq.ft. and for the premises bearing no.4-3-161/10. 38. The rent controller determined fair rent payable for the premises @ 75 per sq.ft which comes to Rs.17,250/- for 230 sq.ft. Whereas, the Appellate Court reduced the same to Rs.12,500/- per month for the mulgi bearing no.4-3-161/9 & 10 observing that the rent controller ought to have viewed from the angle of the tenants also before taking decision for fixing fair rent @ Rs.17,250/- per month i.e. @ Rs.75/- per sq.ft. But, considering various factors like location etc., determined fair rent @ Rs.12,500/- per month as the Appellate Authority found it just and reasonable. The fair rent determined by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court is now under challenge in these revisions on various grounds referred in the earlier paragraphs. But, considering various factors like location etc., determined fair rent @ Rs.12,500/- per month as the Appellate Authority found it just and reasonable. The fair rent determined by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court is now under challenge in these revisions on various grounds referred in the earlier paragraphs. This Court already determined the fixation of rent of the schedule premises on the basis of carpet area, it is appropriate to advert to the evidence, as the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 22 of the Act did not limit the powers of this Court to advert to the evidence, like revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India or Section 115 C.P.C. The powers of this Court are wider under Section 22. Therefore, it necessitated to advert to the oral and documentary evidence, available on record to decide fair rent payable for the premises. 39. The landlady examined her husband as P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief. He reiterated the contentions raised in the main petition while admitting categorically in line no.3 of page no.2 of his examination-in-chief, that, on the basis of location, area, as well as market value, the premises is now fetching Rs.70/- per sq.ft per month while alleging that similarly located premises with similar amenities are fetching Rs.100/-, but her claim is confined to Rs.70/- per sq.ft. She produced a C.D containing of photographs of the building which is marked as Ex.A-1 to highlight the location of the premises and the purpose for which the premises is being used. She also marked Exs.P-6, 7 & 8, the carbon copy of rent receipts for mulgi bearing nos.6, 8 & 11, being paid by S.V. Polypack, M. Mohan & sons and S.K. Enterprises to establish the prevailing rate of rent with similar amenities, their shops are in the ground floor of the building. 40. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the tenants have paid Rs.35,000/- as advance and receipt was issued to the tenants, who admitted that each tenants has paid entire advance of Rs.35,000/- as advance. Thus, the total advance paid by the tenants is Rs.70,000/- and the said advance amount is also relevant to fix the fair rent, because it is an interest free advance. Admittedly, the contractual tenancy was not reduced into writing, but P.W.1 testified that there is a hike of rent @ 20% for every three years. Thus, the total advance paid by the tenants is Rs.70,000/- and the said advance amount is also relevant to fix the fair rent, because it is an interest free advance. Admittedly, the contractual tenancy was not reduced into writing, but P.W.1 testified that there is a hike of rent @ 20% for every three years. If, there is an escalation for 20% for every three years, the rent may increase or decrease. But, if it is a hike in the market rate of rent, then the same has to be considered. When the rent is fluctuating, it is difficult to accept as there is a hike in rent @ 20% for every three years. In any view of the matter, the landlady admitted that the property tax is being paid by the tenants to the municipal corporation and that the premises bearing No.4-3-161/10 is only 225 sq.ft, according to her admission and the premises is facing to the main road. P.W.1 asserted that the rent being paid by the tenants S.V. Polypack is manifold higher than the rent being paid by the tenants in the schedule premises and the rent by the tents of the various mulgis in the same building. More curiously, P.W.1 admitted that the tenants in occupation of the premises bearing No.4-3-161/11 i.e. adjoining the premises to the schedule premises is paying rent of Rs.3500/- per month for 65 sq.ft, which is marked as Ex.P-8, and paid advance of Rs.2,50,000/- and the rent was enhanced only in the year 2014. Thus, in the cross-examination, except putting a suggestion and getting denial, nothing has been elicited to disprove that the rent being paid by the tenants covered by Exs.P-6 to P-8. 41. P.W.2 is Bhupender A. Desai who has allegedly occupied the adjacent mulgi 4-3-161/8 and carrying on business in the name and style M/s M. Mohan & Sons in the carpet area of 80 sq.ft was examined and according to his evidence, he is paying Rs.4,000/- per month for carpet area. The landlady enhanced rent for every two years from the date of obtaining premises on lease in the year 1984 and the rent being paid by him is Rs.50/- per sq.ft, from 01.04.2014. Even if the examination in chief of P.W.2 is accepted, the person who is in occupation of the mulgi is paying monthly rent Rs. The landlady enhanced rent for every two years from the date of obtaining premises on lease in the year 1984 and the rent being paid by him is Rs.50/- per sq.ft, from 01.04.2014. Even if the examination in chief of P.W.2 is accepted, the person who is in occupation of the mulgi is paying monthly rent Rs. 50/- per sq.ft, but not Rs.75/- as contended by the landlady. 42. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, nothing has been elicited to disprove the prevailing rate of rent Rs.50/- per sq.ft. On the other hand, Ex.P-7 coupled with the evidentiary admission in the cross-examination that the tenant by name M/s M. Mohan & sons is paying Rs.4,000/- per month to the premises bearing 4-3-161/8 admeasuring 80 sq.ft is unrebutted. 43. P.W.2 also deposited Rs.40,000/- at the time when he was inducted into possession of the property, as caution deposit and the same is refundable without interest. He also produced Exs.X-1 to X-5 and those documents were confronted to the witness during cross-examination. But, his evidence is not consistent regarding identification of the signatures on Ex.X-1. Exs.X-2 to X-5 are only photographs to demonstrate the nature of use to which the premises is put. Similarly, P.W.3-P. Raghavender is another tenant in occupation of mulgi bearing no.4-3-161/11 running business in the name and style of M/s. S.K. Enterprises, he is in occupation of carpet area of 55 sq.ft and paying rent of Rs.3,550/-. He obtained the premises on rent on 01.04.2007 on monthly rent of Rs.2,300/- per month and Rs.100/- towards amenities and the rent is exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges, as per examination-in-chief and he is paying the rent of Rs.55 per sq.ft as on the date of examination before the Court on 18.11.2015. 44. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that there was an understanding between the landlady and the tenant for enhancement of rent @ 10% after expiry of every year. Even assuming for a moment that what P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 stated is true, the prevailing market rate of rent is ranging from Rs50/- to Rs55/- per sq.ft as per Exs.P-6, 7 & 8 and evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3. 45. Even assuming for a moment that what P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 stated is true, the prevailing market rate of rent is ranging from Rs50/- to Rs55/- per sq.ft as per Exs.P-6, 7 & 8 and evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3. 45. R.W.1 K. Shiva Kumar, the respondent in R.C was examined and according to his examination in chief, he is in occupation of the two mulgis 9 & 10 and carrying on business and his contention is that, he is paying municipal tax for the last 10 years @ Rs.5,762/- for two mulgis. Therefore, the said fact has to be taken into consideration while fixing fair rent. He further contended that the rent prevailing within the vicinity of schedule premises is too low, in view of the age of the building, the amenities provided for the building. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that Exs.P-9 & 10 are the books maintained by the security guards for the year 2013 & 2015 and R.W.1 admitted the entries therein and also admitted that there is a parking facility to the schedule premises and also confronted the rent receipts marked as Exs.P-1 to P-8 paid by S.K. Enterprises, Polypack. But, R.W.1 pleaded ignorance about the rent being paid by the tenants in occupation of other premises covered by Exs.P-6 to P-8. He admitted that the adjacent shops to the petition schedule premises i.e. shop no. 10 is facing towards eastern side and the other is on the northern side of mulgi No.9, there is one shop No.9 on the eastern side and shop No.14 facing towards northern side. 46. But, these suggestions are of no use and the facts elicited with regard to the directions are of little importance. Therefore, taking into consideration, the evidence of R.W.1-tenants is that the prevailing rate of rent for the similar building was not at the rate of Rs.75 per sq.ft. But, he did not establish the exact rent prevailing within the vicinity of the schedule premises by examining any independent witnesses or by producing any document. 47. On overall consideration, it is evident that the rent prevailing in the market within the vicinity of the schedule premises with similar amenities which is put to use for commercial purpose is ranging between Rs.50 to 55 per sq.ft. 47. On overall consideration, it is evident that the rent prevailing in the market within the vicinity of the schedule premises with similar amenities which is put to use for commercial purpose is ranging between Rs.50 to 55 per sq.ft. but, the other tenants P.Ws.2 & 3 are not paying property tax for the schedule premises, whereas, the tenants in occupation of the premises 9 & 10 are paying property tax to the municipal corporation i.e.Rs.2,881/- per annum. Therefore, the payment of tax to the municipal corporation by the tenants in occupation of the schedule premises is an additional factor to be taken into consideration while determining the fair rent payable for the premises. The rent cases were filed in the year 2014 and by the date of filing a petitions the prevailing market rate of rent as per oral and documentary evidence available on record was Rs.50/- per sq.ft per month for the adjacent premises in occupation of PWs 2 & 3. Therefore, the rent being paid by PWs 2 & 3 is the best guide to determine the rent payable for the schedule premises i.e. mulgi bearing numbers 9 & 10. 48. No doubt, the tenants in occupation of the mulgis 9 & 10 are paying property tax to the municipal corporation i.e.Rs.2,881/- per annum. These tenants are paying additional amounts to the municipal corporation, which is payable by the landlady herself and it would be just and proper if, the said amount of Rs.2,881/- is permitted to be deducted from the rent payable in the succeeding month. 49. As discussed in the earlier paragraph, the plinth area of the premises is 176 sq.ft feet and Mezzanine floor of the building is only an additional facility provided to the tenants in occupation for better enjoyment and for extra space for office use only. But, that cannot be taken as carpet area of the princes, since mezzanine floor is an amenity like other amenities i.e. shelves etc.. Therefore, carpet area of the premises is only 176 sq.ft, though the landlady contended that it was 230 sq.ft, it is not supported by any evidence and no steps were taken by the landlady to establish the plinth area at least by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. 50. Consequently the rent payable for the premises even as per the evidence on record comes to Rs. 8,800/- (176 sq.ft x Rs.50/-). 51. 50. Consequently the rent payable for the premises even as per the evidence on record comes to Rs. 8,800/- (176 sq.ft x Rs.50/-). 51. The rent controller fixed fair rent @ Rs.75/- per month per sq.ft accepting that the carpet area as 230 sqft, but it was only the claim of the landlady that the rent payable by the tenants to the premises is only Rs.70/- per Sq.ft and no evidence is produced to establish the plinth area and prevailing rate of rent @ Rs.70/- per sq.ft. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 is against contention of the landlady and the rent payable for the premises was only Rs.50/- per sq.ft. Therefore the rent fixed by the rent controller is not fair and reasonable and consequently the appellate authority reduced the same to Rs. 12,500/- but without any data as to prevailing market rate of rent for similar premises with similar amenities and carpet area of the premises. 52. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady while contending that the premises would fetch monthly rent at higher rate than the rent fixed by the Appellate Authority and filed the revisions dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court Mohammad Ahmad & Another v. Atma Ram Chauhan & Another (referred supra), wherein, in the said judgment, the Apex Court held that the tenant must enhance the rent according to the terms of the agreement or at least by ten percent, after every three years and enhanced rent should then be made payable to the landlord. If the rent is too low (in comparison to market rent), having been fixed almost 20 to 25 years back then the present market rate should be worked out either on the basis of valuation report or reliable estimates of building rentals in the surrounding areas, let out on rent recently. 53. In Satesh Jain Oswal v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited (referred supra), this Court held as follows: “27. Insofar as fixing of fair rent is concerned, both Courts have given a concurrent finding. 53. In Satesh Jain Oswal v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited (referred supra), this Court held as follows: “27. Insofar as fixing of fair rent is concerned, both Courts have given a concurrent finding. I do not find any illegality in the fixation of fair rent in view of the lacuna in the statute and the Court of Rent Control has got jurisdiction to determine the fixation of fair rent and the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act does not debar the jurisdiction of the Court or to determine the fair rent as applicable to the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 28. I have already stated that there is no ground to fill up the lacuna by this Court by giving a different kind of interpretation which cannot be called upon from the Court by the State Government. It is for the Legislature to take note of it to bring about necessary amendments to the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Till such time, this Rent Control Act applies to the instrumentality of the State and they can work out their remedies insofar as Rent Control Act is concerned, to the extent, it is not repugnant under the Act. There is no need to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at, including the jurisdictional aspect arising under the Rent Control Act.” 54. In Sai Krishna General Stores v. B. Sai Anand Prasad (referred supra), this Court relied on Suresh Gir v. K. Sahadev ( 1998 (1) ALD 25 ), the Division Bench judgment of the Apex Court held that fair rent to mean reasonable rent is based upon the factors as to prime location of the house, important amenities to the house like water supply, etc., and that the fair rent need not be determined taking factors as on the date of filing application only and the Court can go beyond the date of filing application also in fixing the fair rent. 55. The principles laid down in the all the above three judgments, at best are helpful to hold that the prevailing market rate alone shall be taken into consideration for fixation of fair rent, more particularly for the similarly located building within the vicinity of schedule premises. 55. The principles laid down in the all the above three judgments, at best are helpful to hold that the prevailing market rate alone shall be taken into consideration for fixation of fair rent, more particularly for the similarly located building within the vicinity of schedule premises. If these guidelines are taken into consideration, the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 who are adjacent occupants of mulgis as tenants, is the best guide. 56. The judgments of the Apex Court and various High Courts referred supra, relied on by the tenants will have no application to the present facts of the case, since the rent was not fixed under Section 4 of the Act and the petitions filed before the Rent Controller filed for determining the fair rent after fixing fair rent earlier. 57. In view of my foregoing discussion, it is difficult for this Court to allow C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017 filed by the landlady. However, fair rent determined by the Appellate Authority in R.A.No.174 & 175 of 2016 is reduced to Rs. 8,800/- (176 sq.ft x Rs.50/-), while permitting the tenants to deduct the tax, if any, paid for the mulgi Nos.9 & 10 which are in their occupation during the succeeding month from the rent payable to the landlady. 58. In the result, C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 filed by the wife and husband respectively who are the tenants, are allowed-in-part, fixing fair rent at Rs. 8,800/- (176 sq.ft x Rs.50/-), with a liberty to deduct the tax, if any, paid to the Municipal Corporation for the mulgi Nos.9 & 10 which are in their occupation, from the rent payable for the succeeding month, and C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017 filed by the landlady are dismissed. 59. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.