Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : T.CH.SURYA RAO
Sai Krishna General Stores, Secunderabad - Appellant
Versus
B.Sai Anand Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-26-03
Held : Rent Controller who has undoubtedly the inherent jurisdiction to fix the fair rent and has the initial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, while in the process of fixation of fair rent comes to the conclusion that the quantum might exceed the limit of rs. 1000/-; which limit is prescribed under the statute for convenience sake and on account of the policy of the Government and is susceptible of change; will not cease to have jurisdiction and cannot at that stage direct the petitioner to approach the municipal Courts.
This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence on the point while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The appellate Court concurred with the finding of the learned rent Controller that the landlord was entitled to fixation of the fair rent. Therefore, the concurrent finding of both the Courts below was that the landlord was entitled to fixation of the fair rent. On the data available on record, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 4,0007- per month per mugli but having regard to the fact that no improvements or additions to the buildings were in fact made subsequently, the appellate court modified it to Rs. 3,0007- per month per mulgi.
Under these circumstances, I see no compelling circumstances to interfere with the said concurrent finding of fact. Therefore, crp Nos. 2312, 2313, 3332 and 3520 of 2001 must fail.
Similarly, it is to be seen whether the impugned judgments in CRP Nos. 871 and 881 of 2002 are correct, legal and proper. Appreciating the evidence on the point, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at rs. 3,0007- per month mulgi, particularly having regard to the fact that the rent was fixed in the year 1966 and there was no enhancement of rent since then. While concurring with the finding of the learned rent Controller that the landlord is entitled to the fixation of fair rent, the learned appellant Court, however, on the ground that the demised premises have been constructed about 30 years back and no depreciation was given in that regard by the learned Rent Controller, reduced the fair rent as fixed by the learned Rent Controller to Rs. 2,5007- per month per mulgi. Such an approach of the appellate Court cannot be said to be wrong.
Therefore, there are no compelling circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgments in CRP Nos. 871 of 881 of 2002 and they must fail.
( 1 ) INASMUCH as common questions of law and fact are involved, although the landlords and the tenants are different, all these six Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of together. CRP Nos. 2312, 2313, 3332 and 3520 of 2001:
( 2 ) THE above revision petitions arise out of R. C. Nos. 192/1996 and 196/1996 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, secunderabad. The landlord filed the said petitions under Section 4 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 ( the Act for brevity) seeking fixation of fair rent against two of his tenants in respect of his non- residential premises bearing No. 1-8-91/19/1 and No. 1-8-91/19/2 respectively situate at prenderghast Road, Secunderabad. At the culmination of enquiry, on an appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned rent Controller allowed those two petitions fixing the fair rent at Rs. 4,000/- per month exclusive of the electricity consumption charges and property taxes payable on the premises with effect from 1. 8. 1996 by two separate orders both dated 28. 11. 1998.
( 3 ) IN the appeals filed in R. A. Nos. 361/1998 and 362/1998 by the tenants against those orders the learned Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad under the two impugned judgments both dated 3. 4. 2001, while dismissing the appeals, reduced the quantum of rent from Rs. 4,000. 00 to Rs. 3,000. 00 per month. Assailing the said judgments of the appellate authority, both the tenants filed crp Nos. 2312/2001 and 2313/2001 respectively and the landlord filed CRP nos. 3332/2001 and 3520/2001.
( 4 ) THE case of the landlord was that he purchased the non-residential building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor bearing No. 1-8-91/19/1 and 1-8-91/19/2, under a registered sale deed dated 20. 7. 1979. Immediately after the purchase, after having obtained the necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) he made new constructions by raising RCC pillars and beams. One of the mulgies situate in the ground floor bearing No. 1-8-91/19/1 was leased out to M/s. Sai Krishna General stores, the respondent-tenant in R. C. No. 192 of 1996 under a rental agreement dated 22. 7. 1985 on a monthly rent of Rs. 450. 00 exclusive of electricity consumption charges. Another mulgi situate in the ground floor bearing No. 1-8-91/19/2 was leased out to m/s. Mukkawar General Stores, the respondent-tenant in R. C. No. 196 of 1996 under a rental agreement dated 1. 11. 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. 00exclusive of electricity consumption charges. Both the tenants have been doing business in general stores in the respective demised premises. It was his further case that he had provided more suitable, necessary required comforts and space to enable the tenants to run their general stores business in the demised premises. The rent was later enhanced from rs. 450/- to Rs. 950. 00 per month in respect of the premises bearing No. 1-8-91/19/1 and it was enhanced from Rs. 300. 00 to Rs. 910. 00 per month in respect of the premises bearing no. 1-8-91/19/2 some time thereafter. The measurements of both the premises in question are 12 feet x 20 feet with 3 feet wide pial fitted with rolling shutters and in fact the mulgies fetch a monthly rent of rs. 4,700/- exclusive of electricity consumption charges and property taxes. Subsequently when he requested the tenants to enhance the rent on several occasions on the basis of the prevailing market rental value without reference to usual tentative enhancements made time to time, the tenants refused to enhance the rents. The landlord, therefore, approached the learned Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent for the mulgies in question.
( 5 ) BOTH the tenants claim that the landlord did not make any improvements to the demised premises after they had been inducted as tenants therein and the claim of the landlord for fair rent of Rs. 4,700. 00 per month is totally misconceived. CRPNos.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
