MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6-9-1993 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 235 of 1993 confirming the order dated 29-3-1993 passed by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R. C. No. 773 ofl991.

( 2 ) BEFORE the Rent Controller, in R. C. No. 773/-1993 an application under Section4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the A. P. Rent Control Act ) was filed by the respondent-landlord seeking fixation of fair-rent for the demised premises. The matter was contested by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that this Court in the decision in Md. Ataur Rahman Khan v. Md. Kamaluddin Ahmed, 1987 (1) ALT 216 held that Section 4 of the A. P. Rent Control Act is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was, therefore, held as unconstitutional. In view of the said decision, it was contended that the application under Section 4 is not maintainable inasmuch as the very provision itself has been struck down in the decision referred to above.

( 3 ) THE learned Rent Controller felt that though Section 4 of the A. P. Rent Control Act was declared unconstitutional, the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to determine the fair-rent taking into account the existing circumstances of the case as observed by this Court while remitting the matter in the above decision to the Rent controller for determining the rent. Therefore, in view of such remittal, the Rent Controller held that he has power to determine the fair rent.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said finding of the Rent Controller, the tenant carried the matter before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 235 of 1993. The lower appellate Court, while confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller, was also of the view that the Rent Controller is vested with the power of fixing the fair-rent though Section 4 of the A. P. Rent Control Act has been struck down by this Court, basing on the observation made by this Court in the above decision. While doing so, the lower appellate Court felt that the Rent Controller, while determining the rent, has to take into account the existing circumstances as on the date of filing of the application, having regard to the cost and other relative factors prevailing in the locality as observed by this Court in the decision referred to above. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present civil revision petition is filed by the tenant.

( 5 ) SRI K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, has placed before me a decision of the Supreme Court dealing with similar provision under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Rent Control Act) wherein it was held that Section 4 of the Punjab Rent Control Act cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, it is contended, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sant Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 485, the provision contemplated under Section 4 of the A. P. Rent Control Act cannot be held to be unreasonable.

( 6 ) THE relevant finding of the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra is extracted below for the purpose of appreciating the crux of the matter: "section 4 (of the Punjab Rent Control, Act) which provides the manner for determining the fair rent by laying down that the Rent Controller, while determining the fair rent shall take into consideration the prevalent rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during 12 months prior to 1st Jan. 1939 or in other words the Rent Controller has first to determine the rent prevalent in the locality in the year 1938 and then fix the rent accordingly cannot be said to be unreasonable in view of the fact that one of the objects for which the Act was passed was to restrict the increase in rent. " The Supreme Court also observed: ". . . . . . It mu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document