CRP No.192 of 2010 is preferred by the tenant, whereas CRP No.4430 of 2009 is preferred by the landlady. Both these revisions arise out of an application filed by the landlady for fixation of fair rent being RC No.411 of 2005 on the file of the II-Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as 'landlady' and 'tenant'.

2. The landlady alleged that the tenant is in possession of the premises bearing Municipal Door No.14-7-336 consisting of three rooms, situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad which was let out to him for residential purpose on a monthly existing rent of Rs.100/- from 1972. The landlady, therefore, claimed that the tenanted premises is in busy commercial locality and carries great rental value in view of the proximity of hospitals, markets, bus stations, railway station etc. She also alleged that even municipal taxes are more than the rents received from the tenant. She, therefore, sought enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

3. The tenant resisted the petition by claiming that the tenanted premises is no in Begum Bazar, but in Jummerath Bazar near Begum Bazar and the tenanted premises consists of only two rooms which is an o1d building and as such he claims that it does not have so much of rental value as claimed by the landlady.

4. The landlady examined herself as PW1 and Government Valuator as PW2 who marked Exs.P1 and P2. On behalf of tenant, he examined himself as RW1. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the plinth area of tenanted premises is 516 SFT and applying the prevailing rental value of Rs.7/- per SFT, the learned Rent Controller has fixed the monthly rent at Rs.36 12/-. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, while the landlady opposed the said appeal. The learned Counsel for the tenant contended that in the absence of any cross-objections or cross-appeal, the landlady cannot be permitted to seek enhancement of rent over and above the rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller. The lower appellate Court, however, considered the merits of the respective claims of the parties and came to the conclusion that though the evidence of PW2 and his valuation report is not satisfactory, but keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rattan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1986 SC 1444, it has taken judicial notice of the phenomenal increasing rents in the twin cities and has fixed the monthly rent at Rs.3,000/-. Since the tenant as well as the landlady is aggrieved by the said fixation of rent, these two revision petitions are preferred by both of them.

5. Heard Mr. Shrad Sanghi, learned Counsel for the tenant and Mr. Pramod Kumar Kedia, learned Counsel for the landlady who have respectively substantiated their contentions. I have also been taken through Ex.P1, the valuator's report ofPW2 as well as the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RW1.

6. It is apparent from the contentions of either side that there is a controversy with respect to the exact plinth area of tenanted premises and as to whether it comprises of two rooms with veranda or three rooms. There is also a controversy with regard to the location of the tenanted premises, as according to the tenant, it is in a very narrow lane of Jummerath Bazar. The report of the valuator EX.P1 does not throw much light on either of the controversies, inasmuch as it is admitted that the said report was prepared without notice to the tenant and in any case the measurements of the tenanted premises were not taken in the presence of tenant. The report further shows the calculation of the built up area as 516 SFT, open area as 120 SFT and undivided share in the land was also added and total valuation of the property was arrived at. The learned Counsel for the tenant contended that the thickness of the walls has not been excluded from assessing the actual area under