Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 497 (TS)

P. Shekhar v. P. Mahaveerchand

2025-04-30

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : K. SUJANA, J. This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.06.2017 passed in R.A.No.168 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by confirming the order dated 20.08.2015 passed in R.C.No.62 of 2011 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad (for short ‘Rent Controller’). 2. R.A.No.168 of 2015 was filed by the revision petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.No.62 of 2011, filed by the respondent herein who is the landlord for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act (for short ‘Act’). The petitioner herein is the tenant. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as ‘Landlord’ and ‘Tenant’. 3. The landlord is the owner of four premises, bearing municipal Nos.10-2-193, 10-2-193/A, 10-2-193/2/B and 10-2-194/2/B, 10-2-193/C, 10-2-194/2/C and 10-2-193/B situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad. The tenant has occupied premises No.10-2-193/D forming part of 10-2-193 and 10-2-194/2/C, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 970/- plus property tax. Although there was a written rental agreement executed on 01.12.1993, it expired on 30.10.1994, and since then, the tenancy has been oral. The landlord claims that the present rate of rent for similar premises in that area is around Rs.10,000/- per month. Considering this, the landlord has increased the rent of adjoining premises to Rs.4,950/-, although they could fetch a fair rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The landlord expects the tenant to enhance the rent to Rs.10,000/- per month, given the premises prime location on Entrenchment Road, Marredpally, Secunderabad, with easy access to hospitals, educational institutions, places of worship, railway station, bus depot, market, and other amenities. As such, the tenant is liable for payment of enhanced rent of Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. The tenant filed a counter to the said petition alleging that landlord has filed multiple proceedings, including eviction petition, causing hardship and harassment. Despite agreeing to enhance the rent by 100%, the landlord claims an exorbitant and unreasonable rent of Rs.10,000/- per month. 5. The tenant disputes the landlord’s claim that the premises is located in a commercial area, stating that they are in a residential area with no nearby shopping complexes. The premises are old, requiring extensive repairs, which the landlord has neglected despite requests. 5. The tenant disputes the landlord’s claim that the premises is located in a commercial area, stating that they are in a residential area with no nearby shopping complexes. The premises are old, requiring extensive repairs, which the landlord has neglected despite requests. The tenant alleged that the demand for Rs.10,000/- per month is unjustified and proposes a 100% rent increase to Rs.1,940/- per month with a 10% increase every three years. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs. 5. Basing on the said averments, the trial Court framed three points for consideration. On behalf of the landlord Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.32 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, Rw.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.7 were marked and also got marked Exs.X.1 to X.7. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court fixed the rent @ Rs.4,950/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant filed Rent Appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court affirming the order of Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri Manu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Ram Chander, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that both the Rent controller and the Rent Control appellate Court failed to consider the submissions made by the tenant against the evidence adduced by the parties and the landlord who filed Rent Control case has not mentioned the extent of premises in his petition except stating the schedule, no document is filed to show that the schedule premises is 220 Sq. feet, the Rent Controller and the appellate Court basing on assumptions and presumptions concluded that it is 220 Sq feet and fixed the rate @ Rs.25/- per square feet. Both the Courts have not considered the submission of the tenant that the subject building is a 30 years old building. He further contended that though the Rent Controller and the appellate Court discarded the evidence of Pw.2, ought to have considered his evidence regarding the extent of property and without there being any evidence to prove the contention of landlord, yet the rent was enhanced about more than 500% from the existing rent of Rs.970/- to Rs.4,950/-, which is against the provision under Section 4 of the Act. Further no document is filed to prove that it is commercial property, the subject property is a residential property and for residential property they fixed the rent of Rs.25/- per Square feet and there is no evidence of prevailing rent, that there is no pleading with regard to premises as commercial property and also the extent of premises. 8. Learned counsel for the tenant further submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the schedule premises is 220 Sq feet and there is no evidence to show that it is a commercial property. As per the rental agreement, the tenant has to enhance rent @ 10% for over three years. Therefore, it cannot be Rs.4,950/- even according to the rental agreement. The evidence of Pw.2 is no way helpful to the tenant. Though the evidence of Pw.2 was discarded by both the Courts they considered the contentions of landlord without there being any evidence. As such, requested the Court to set aside the order of appellate Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord would submit that the landlord filed Ex.P.1-Sketch map along with the plaint, wherein the schedule premises is shown as 450 Sq. feet. Though the trial Court has not relied on Ex.P.1, relied on the evidence of Pw.2 and considered it as 220 Sq. feet, in fact the landlord is entitled for rent @ Rs.450/- per square feet. Further learned counsel contended that the subject property is a commercial property at entrenchment road of Maredpally, Secunderabad. Therefore, the contention of tenant is contrary to the pleading of landlord. In fact for the same premises in the said locality an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month would be fetching as rent but the trial Court fixed only Rs.4,950/- as affirmed by the appellate Court. In fact it is meager amount which is fixed in the year 2011. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this revision petition. 10. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and the material on record, now, the point to be considered is whether the order in R.A.No.168 of 2017 requires any interference ? POINT : 11. The first contention of the tenant is that the landlord has not filed any document to show the extent of property as 220 Sq. feet but he referred to schedule of property in the Rent Control Case. 12. POINT : 11. The first contention of the tenant is that the landlord has not filed any document to show the extent of property as 220 Sq. feet but he referred to schedule of property in the Rent Control Case. 12. Going through the said contention, in the petition schedule, the property is mentioned as Mulgi premises bearing No.10-2-193/D, and the boundaries of the said property, but has not mentioned the extent of property in the petition or in the schedule of property, whereas, the landlord has filed Ex.P.1 Sketch map showing the extent of property. Further, the Rent Controller and the appellate Court have considered the evidence of Pw.2, wherein he has stated that the premises of the tenant were double the premises of Pw.2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the extent of property was not mentioned in the petition by the landlord. 13. The second contention of learned counsel for the tenant is that the subject property is not a commercial property, but it is only a residential property, whereas in the counter, it was mentioned as Mulgi but not the house. In cross-examination, the tenant has admitted that there are some residential portions and five to six commercial shops, that Secunderabad Railway Station is 1½ kms away from the petition schedule property. He also admitted that there are number of Nursing Homes in East Maredpally area and that Deccan Club is opposite to the petition schedule property. He also admitted that the road in front of petition schedule property is entrenchment road. The admission of tenant in his cross-examination itself shows that the subject property is a commercial property. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of both the Courts deciding that subject property is a commercial property. Further the contention of learned counsel for the tenant is that as of now no repairs were made, even though it is an old building. However, in the cross examination he admitted that he has not issued any notice requesting the landlord to renew the rental agreement or requested the landlord for making repairs and when the witness was confronted with photographs, he admitted the photographs which are commercial properties of that area, shows that it is a commercial property. No notice was issued by the tenant requesting for renewal of rental agreement or for carrying out any repairs. No notice was issued by the tenant requesting for renewal of rental agreement or for carrying out any repairs. The third contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that there is no pleading in the petition with regard to the commercial property, whereas, the averments of the petition shows that it is a commercial property in entrenchment road and fetching a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month which is also a pleading of the landlord. 14. The evidence on record placed in this case is of Pws.1 and 2. Pw.1 is the owner of property and Pw.2 is one of the tenants. The evidence of Pw.2 is not considered by the trial Court as it is inconsistent with the petition averments. Exs.P.26 to P.30 are filed showing that Meghana Communications are paying Rs.10,000/- per month in the adjacent mugli as such, basing on the same, the Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.4,950/- which was up held by the appellate Court. Hence, there is no illegality in the order of Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate Court. I find no reasons to interfere with the said orders. There are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.