JUDGMENT : Milind N Jadhav, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Writ Petition No.7010/2017 has been filed by the Landlords to challenge the judgment dated 3.8.2017 passed in Civil Revision Application No.36/2016 by the District Judge-13, Nagpur and seek confirmation of the judgment dated 18.9.2014 passed in M.J.C. No.23/2008 by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur. Writ Petition No.33/2018 has been filed by the Tenant to challenge and set aside Clause 2 of the judgment dated 3.8.2017 passed in Civil Revision Application No.36/2016 in respect of the same property. Since facts are common and similar, both the Petitions are disposed of by a common order. 3. In Petition No.33/2018 the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 3rd August, 2017, in Civil Revision Application No.36 of 2016 passed by the learned District Judge-13, Nagpur, whereby the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner (Original Appellant) under Section 34 (IV) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 came to be partly allowed. By the said order, Petitioner was directed to pay monthly rent @ Rs.6,000/- per month towards the user of the suit shop/flat to the Respondents. 4. The brief facts, necessary for deciding the present Petitions, are as follows: The Respondents are the owners of immovable property bearing House No.640, City Survey No.615, Sheet No.160, situated in Ward No.31, City Post Office Road, Tahsil and District - Nagpur, comprising of ground and upper floors. The Respondents purchased the said property by registered Sale Deed dated 2nd November, 2006. The Petitioner is a statutory tenant and in occupation of one flat admeasuring 220 sq.ft. situated on the first floor of the above property. The attornment of tenancy of the Petitioner was made over to the Respondents by the previous landlord. In the year 2008, the Respondents filed application for fixation of fair rent, bearing M.J.C. No.23 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur. This application was contested by the Petitioner. The learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court at Nagpur, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by the respective parties on record, allowed the application and fixed the rent of the premises @ Rs.9,000/- per month to be payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents. This application was contested by the Petitioner. The learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court at Nagpur, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by the respective parties on record, allowed the application and fixed the rent of the premises @ Rs.9,000/- per month to be payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred Civil Revision Application No.36/2016 under Section 34 (IV) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the District Judge-13 at Nagpur. By order dated 3rd August 2017, the Revisional Court partly allowed the Revision and fixed monthly rent @ Rs.6,000/- per month to be payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents. This order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition by the Petitioner tenant as being excessive. 5. Admittedly, the status of the property is that, the flat is situated on the first floor and admeasures 220 sq.ft. The Petitioner is in occupation of the said property, much prior to the Respondents becoming the owners of the said property. The Petitioner is using the said flat as a shop for running various businesses viz; initially, a Beauty Centre and now a Saree Centre, as is evident from the record of the case and the pleadings. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner is using the said flat for commercial purposes. 6. Shri Fulzele, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court committed a serious mistake by not appreciating the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and in not defining the permitted increase while deciding the quantum of rent payable and thus, the fair rent/standard rent, as directed to be paid by the Petitioner was not justified. According to him, the rent fixed was in excess of the rent that would have been payable by the Petitioner and he submitted that it ought to be much less than Rs.6,000/- per month, as determined by the Revisional Court. However, apart from the pleadings, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, did not draw my attention to any material in the form of cogent evidence so as to enable the Court to determine as to what could be the fair rent of the said flat, according to the Petitioner which was used by the Petitioner for commercial purposes. 7. However, apart from the pleadings, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, did not draw my attention to any material in the form of cogent evidence so as to enable the Court to determine as to what could be the fair rent of the said flat, according to the Petitioner which was used by the Petitioner for commercial purposes. 7. Per CONTRA, Shri N.G.Jetha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, vehemently opposed the Petition and made the following submissions: (a) He submitted that the suit flat is situated in a building which is A-Class construction and located in one of the busiest commercial area of Nagpur City. He submitted that the Petitioner was paying a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- on the date on which the Respondents became the owners of the suit property and attornment of tenancy took place. He further submitted that the Petitioner was a habitual defaulter in making payment of the monthly rent right since the beginning. He also submitted that it was agreed orally that there will be an increase of 10% in the monthly rent payable after every three years, as also the Corporation tax and the Water tax, that would be payable by the Petitioner. (b) He submitted that the Petitioner has not paid a single farthing since 1st November, 2006 to the Respondents (Landlord) towards rent and the Corporation taxes. He submitted that since the property was a composite property situated in a building, it was incumbent and mandatory upon the Petitioner to regularly pay the Corporation taxes and Water charges regularly as and when called upon by the Corporation every year. He submitted that merely because the Petitioner never paid her share of statutory taxes to the Respondents (Landlord), it was not possible for the Respondents (Landlord) to withhold the payment of the same to the Corporation. (c) He submitted that the said flat was given on rent to the Petitioner by the erstwhile landlord for residential purpose only. However, the Petitioner was making a virtue out of the same by using the said flat for commercial purposes and was commercially profiteering from her such act without paying any rent whatsoever to the Respondents (Landlord). (c) He submitted that the said flat was given on rent to the Petitioner by the erstwhile landlord for residential purpose only. However, the Petitioner was making a virtue out of the same by using the said flat for commercial purposes and was commercially profiteering from her such act without paying any rent whatsoever to the Respondents (Landlord). He submitted that being aggrieved by the behavior, conduct and omission on the part of the Petitioner, the Respondents-Landlord were in the process of filing separate proceedings for termination of tenancy of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide need by the Respondents. (d) He submitted that insofar as the fair rent was concerned, the area in which the said flat was situated fetched a minimum rent @ Rs.40 per sq.ft. and, therefore, the Petitioner was liable to pay the same considering that all facilities were available in close proximity of the said flat-building which included markets, hospitals, banks, entertainment places, gardens, education institutions etc. He submitted that since the statutory taxes payable to the Corporation had increased manifold over the past few years, there was an urgent need of enhancing the rent payable by the Petitioner and, therefore, the rent, which was fixed by the Trial Court @ Rs.9000/- per month was fair. Even though, it was the case of the Respondents that the said flat could fetch a monthly return @ Rs.56/- per sq.ft. He, therefore, submitted that considering the above aspects pertaining to the flat, the fair rent could be fixed at the value much higher than Rs.9000/- per month excluding Corporation Taxes, Water and electricity charges etc. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and going through the pleadings on record, it is observed that the Petitioner and Respondent no.1 both led their respective evidence before the Trial Court. However, the Respondents led additional evidence of their Architect, Valuer and Surveyor Shri Wasudeo Atmaram Kukdey, in order to justify the computation and calculation of fair rent of the suit flat. The said Architect had filed a Fair Rent Certificate, which was taken on record and marked as exhibit wherein on the basis of inspection, condition of the building, locality and valuation of the said flat, as per the Government Ready reckoner of the year 2012, he had opined that fair monthly rent of the said flat would be Rs.15,733/- per month. The Architect was extensively cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 9. I have gone through the examination-in-chief, the Fair Rent Certificate taken on record and marked as Exhibit 23 (1) and the cross-examination of the Architect. The Fair Rent Certificate and the evidence given by the Architect of the Respondents have not been controverted by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has also chosen not to lead any evidence in rebuttal on the aspect of computation and calculation of fair rent before the Trial Court. Another aspect, which requires to be noted is that, during the cross-examination of the Petitioner before the Trial Court, she has herself admitted that there has been an increase in the charges of beauty parlour work as on today, as compared to the point of time 20 years' ago. She has categorically stated that there has been an inflation of each and every item and price, since the last 20 years. In her cross-examination, she has also not denied the fact that the suit flat is situated in a locality, which is commercially viable. 10. I have perused the judgment dated 18th September, 2014 and the reasons given in paragraph no. 25 reads thus: "When it is admitted fact that the suit property is used for commercial purpose considering the certificate of architect W.A.Kukade, it will be proper to fix the fair rent of the suit property. As the rent of Rs. 9,000/- per month as claimed by the applicants in the application which is just and proper. Therefore non-applicant has to pay the rent @ Rs.9,000/- per month from the date of the application i.e. on 13.03.2008. Hence, the applicants has proved circumstances for grant of fixation of fair rent and the claim of Rs.9,000/- per month is just and proper. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative". 11. While juxtaposing the above judgment with the judgment dated 3rd August, 2017 delivered by the Revisional Court, there was no reason for the Revisional Court to reduce the monthly rent from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.6,000/- by opining that the suit flat could fetch a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as rent. The Revisional Court has also noted in paragraph nos.20 and 21 of its judgment, the importance of the Fair Rent Certificate and the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Architect of the Respondents. 12. The Revisional Court has also noted in paragraph nos.20 and 21 of its judgment, the importance of the Fair Rent Certificate and the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Architect of the Respondents. 12. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.33/2018 is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 18th September 2014 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, fixing fair rent of the suit flat @ Rs.9,000/- per month is upheld in its entirety. The Respondents are entitled to recover the difference of rent of Rs.9,000/- per month from the date of the application by adjusting the amount deposited and/or paid by the Petitioner in the Court. The judgment dated 3rd August 2017 passed by the Revisional Court is accordingly set aside. Writ Petition No.7010/2017 is accordingly allowed in terms of the above directions. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Both the Petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.